IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Sun, 17 January 2016 03:40 UTC

Return-Path: <mnot@mnot.net>
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 32A901B2B03 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 16 Jan 2016 19:40:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.602
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.602 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-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 aU0dBkyVxFrN for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 16 Jan 2016 19:40:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mxout-07.mxes.net (mxout-07.mxes.net [216.86.168.182]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 13E361B2B02 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Sat, 16 Jan 2016 19:40:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.101] (unknown [120.149.194.112]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1F74222E262; Sat, 16 Jan 2016 22:40:06 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2104\))
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAMm+LwjanCXwdqAPruTi6f7PLWHfHb0brQGEObKauui-5rWkVw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2016 14:40:04 +1100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <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>
To: Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2104)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/apps-discuss/gTnMOwTo85GZRpyiKSKQ5olN1M0>
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 03:40:13 -0000

On 16 Jan 2016, at 1:55 am, Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com> 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