IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com> Sun, 17 January 2016 04:59 UTC

Return-Path: <hallam@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03A181B2BCF for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 16 Jan 2016 20:59:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3970fiAFsalz for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 16 Jan 2016 20:59:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pf0-x235.google.com (mail-pf0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::235]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DBB141B2BCE for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Sat, 16 Jan 2016 20:59:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pf0-x235.google.com with SMTP id n128so139359434pfn.3 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Sat, 16 Jan 2016 20:59:29 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=sender:date:from:to:cc:message-id:in-reply-to:references:subject :mime-version:content-type; bh=astyE7RTxQSHWkth9hvPEpCHDMr/FwxvBkYn/5gwcDM=; b=jyLSttVd7jdoRGB1HpjTRz+hANBhGxb48ghsoxiFnuEtaR5eH6KqgsT3zjOZTMOqwI g3iLPNZPk1m+tNh2bHK7Hk0YSZdC5CmqO9b6EltMt0njwnGg9e94H1xnwQ8KuylOp0Z9 lwz3eJKzWyJodqMisr6DU9eT38lFVax2crCfOCKlweShXEUJIb9NiyvpId1a26fYY5XJ Gt7IljtyoOzKyKj8TTiJWTnwBYMDM/zko+P32Tau9PiDxz6JqqBuB6wZ+nFWvKcP2xQ0 GKfRoBo6HbVwjTGQQ94UmOUJdDwDcZG2cKdtgTl3hcP0OxaHB/y7plOiHAFtiVwvl0jq 2tMA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:date:from:to:cc:message-id:in-reply-to :references:subject:mime-version:content-type; bh=astyE7RTxQSHWkth9hvPEpCHDMr/FwxvBkYn/5gwcDM=; b=D7p+RWT0wVrAz7kaO22QoCOBDuTcA+M1nqMo5L7KhmFimVaeEX8eFaWCIaO4uEj2kX 84EXNBTSo0jyme/haiOY1UqTKYHjI8qUpju6HBrznQCdxUnwAkvHHFAh7JujejC2DEyR 9L7R1/ybGRo4NzTHYoyZ4LkZwdCH/ZNNiwCGEA8mLeb+FwH3DhgZaL8ZdsS3c6GcQdJH n/gCxabIhpZzA+2VZVdsnxHT2xiik+o+5X64pk4CpxqjW+sGUHaDz9XISw07xkE+56Ke vmxatTrzp1UXZv1toR2RwgyeZISGXxc7N89e/etYfxGy81atozH/wG6ovNE9lGWrPGuu 4PfA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmE44GbUSpjtNvXF2tnA6Uf0dft1Q1kMmkajGTn+nK+5QoDvo2wzNIHRIdAz3StFyq4hUsh8hSmfOeLvzxVZ5DkMqVuEA==
X-Received: by 10.98.72.87 with SMTP id v84mr26602948pfa.15.1453006769578; Sat, 16 Jan 2016 20:59:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.outlook.com (ec2-52-24-139-88.us-west-2.compute.amazonaws.com. [52.24.139.88]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id xr8sm25042119pab.26.2016.01.16.20.59.25 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 16 Jan 2016 20:59:26 -0800 (PST)
Sender: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2016 04:59:25 +0000
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Message-ID: <994C5976EA09B556.4692A470-BA3D-4729-BF7A-47F2CFA9B387@mail.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <8B8FE545-8386-41FD-9F33-7A59380D8E95@mnot.net>
References: <CAMm+Lwj=A+KbxOvxFrURZmTmYJuGD3rXvnRToLZ_L+v-Qv_L_w@mail.gmail.com> <F87BF4D5-98EB-4476-B07B-969BEF842EE2@mnot.net> <CAMm+LwiT+bATrwK4guD6qtqPBDiOkXqUeF4+jjLJoP5TYqi3_w@mail.gmail.com> <E5435AB2-4830-4C08-AC3D-AE1FB6E66C53@mnot.net> <5697B833.3000703@cisco.com> <CAMm+LwiDJXwqMXmNcksTJeh0sn6_rvsGdnGu6-KtDcdGy1Wbvg@mail.gmail.com> <CAMm+LwjanCXwdqAPruTi6f7PLWHfHb0brQGEObKauui-5rWkVw@mail.gmail.com> <8B8FE545-8386-41FD-9F33-7A59380D8E95@mnot.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_25759_1943311649.1453006765436"
X-Mailer: Outlook for iOS and Android
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/apps-discuss/LFQ4eORslF81BijZL8BXSwo92cA>
Cc: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] RFC 5785: Registration of .well-known services under HTTP to First Come
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/apps-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2016 04:59:32 -0000

I think you are projecting here.
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
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. 
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 
This is not an open process. Therefore the process must change. 

Sent from Outlook Mobile




On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 7:40 PM -0800, "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net> 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/

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email