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

[Phillip Hallam-Baker <[e-mail]>]

On Sun, Jan 17, 2016 at 12:16 AM, Mark Nottingham <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> 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.

Well despite me asking you repeatedly to give concrete examples of the
benefits you claim you have ignored these requests. Similarly you have
not responded when I asked how many requests were made, how many
refused, how many abandoned, etc.

Yes there is a process, but the first part of any IETF process is discussion.

The problem is that you seem to have a very different idea of what
your role should be than the Tao of the IETF suggests. You are arguing
that you add value as a gatekeeper. Yet you aren't actually explaining
what the criteria you are using are.

Then there are your supporters. The first of which tried to shut down
any discussion. I would be really disappointed if the price for
getting approval was to align protocols with the particular ideology
of protocol design he is known for. Because as his behavior in this
thread demonstrates, considering other people's ideas or points of
view is not something he is good at.

Finally, no, this is not about my convenience, far from it.

I keep making technical arguments and you utterly refuse to engage on
them. The idea of using SRV + .well-known together to resolve
identifiers of the form [e-mail] is well founded and fairly
obvious. Other approaches are possible (e.g. Patrik's URI scheme) but
the only mechanism that is compatible with the legacy infrastructure
is SRV + .well-known

The fact that you ignore my many technical arguments and then demand
more technical justification is the reason I can't take your
statements seriously. I do not think your request for an ID here is
made in good faith.

This is not the venue that we will be discussing this issue. Make sure
that you have better arguments for the wider IETF community.