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 1:25 AM, Mark Nottingham <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 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.

That is not an answer, it is a refusal to give an answer.

You have asserted that your role is essential to prevent bad things
happening. The burden of proof is on you.


>> 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.


You and Roy have both made unprovoked personal attacks on me for
merely daring to suggest that the role is unnecessary. I have not
attacked you personally. You are the person who has tried to make the
issue personal.

What you seem to be doing here is attempting to create a situation
where nobody can discuss the issue by deliberately making it personal.
You and Roy keep making personal attacks, apparently in an attempt to
claim that a breach of etiquette prevents you continuing the
discussion.

All IETF policies are subject to revision. And no, the burden of proof
is not on those that want to make change. That is an assertion you
made.

>> 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.

Or perhaps this isn't about technical issues at all and your demand
for technical arguments was not in good faith.

You suggested that there was a problem with my technical argument.
Then you refused to justify it.

I note that there hasn't exactly been a flood of people supporting
your position either.

>> 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.

When you make personal attacks, that is the only conclusion I can draw.


I note that you have refused to provide evidence for a single one of
your assertions.