Re: [apps-discuss] RFC 5785: Registration of .well-known services under HTTP to First Come

[Mark Nottingham <[e-mail]>]

> On 17 Jan 2016, at 3:59 pm, Phillip Hallam-Baker <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> I think you are projecting here.

OK.

> I did not accuse you of protecting your own position as DE. In fact I only brought it up because other people thought I should

Good to hear.

> I think that the community would be best served by removing you from this process. I have repeatedly asked for specifics of the benefit you provide. You have ignored them and have just accused me of a personal agenda. 

As pointed out, there is a process for changing a registry, and that process was followed when this one was set up. If it's to change, that process should be followed too.

> What really worries me is that you attempt to claim both the benefit of protecting the Iternet from other people's folly and claim not to be an obstacle. Well which is it? Those are incompatible 

Where did I make such claims?

> This is not an open process. Therefore the process must change. 

That seems like a very premature conclusion.

> 
> Sent from Outlook Mobile
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 7:40 PM -0800, "Mark Nottingham" <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> On 16 Jan 2016, at 1:55 am, Phillip Hallam-Baker 
>  wrote:
> > 
> > The reason I originally brought this up is because of complaints about
> > IETF process that I have received. The external perception of IETF is
> > that there is an inside clique who effectively gets to decide
> > everything through control of registration of code points. And right
> > now I have to agree with them.
> 
> Speaking personally:
> 
> I'm very interested in improving the operation of Web-related registries, because some in those communities think that we shouldn't have registries at all, and any issues encountered only bolster that argument.
> 
> So while I've heard complaints as well, I've chosen to attempt to improve things constructively (e.g., the HAPPYIANA list, the "custodian" draft, experiments in the 5988bis draft). 
> 
> Unfortunately, you appear to be wanting to rearrange the registry operation for your personal convenience and alignment with your specific view of how the Internet works, rather than the overall good of the community.  If that's not the case, please show us how.
>  
> Speaking as DE for the registry under discussion:
> 
> If you have a complaint about the actual operation of the registry, I'd love to hear it so I can address it, and escalate the issue if that fails. If you have a suggestion for how to improve the registry process, perhaps an I-D and a constructive discussion is in order.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
> 
> 

--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/