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

[Mark Nottingham <[e-mail]>]

On 17 Jan 2016, at 5:02 pm, Phillip Hallam-Baker <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 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.

When (as in, message IDs)? I received no such requests from you or anyone else - neither once nor "repeatedly".

But to answer regardless -- the DE isn't required to gather such statistics, nor to present them upon demand. Your best bet would be to ask IANA, or the check the mailing list yourself.


> 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.

This discussion would be much more productive if you stopped making this about me and started making it about the registry policy. There was consensus for the current policy, so the burden is upon you to convince people if you want it changed.


> 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.

Um, Roy didn't refer to me at all. I haven't referred to him at all. Have any requests been refused based upon his argumentation? AFAICT, he's only posted to the wellknown-uri-review mailing list twice; once to argue against "dnt-policy.txt" (registered), and once to request "dnt" (registered).

But it's nice to know I have supporters. I'll cherish them.


> 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

Perhaps your technical arguments are failing to convince people.


> The fact that you ignore my many technical arguments and then demand
> more technical justification is the reason 

When did I do that?


> I can't take your statements seriously.

That's beginning to be mutual, Phillip.


> I do not think your request for an ID here is made in good faith.

Since you presume that I'm participating in bad faith here, there's not much point in my continuing. I'll bow out until the adults decide something needs to be done.

Cheers and Happy New Year,

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