Re: [dane] Need some feed back

[Paul Wouters <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, 7 Mar 2019, Pradeep Kumar Xplorer wrote:

Pradeep,

> Subject: [dane] Need some feed back
> 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-xplorer-device-association/

There are a number of fundamental problems with your document.

First, the document seems to want to tie together and manage protocol
identifiers from a slew of technologies and industry standard groups. That
is not something that the IETF can dictate in an RFC.

Second, it was send to the dane list, but I see nothing related to DANE
or DNSSEC. simiarly, the non-WG hasmat list also seems to be the wrong
place for this discussion, as that is specificly about HTTP only. I have
set the reply-to to the generic [e-mail] to prevent further
followups to end up in these wrong mailing lists.

Third, you seem to be putting in personal anecdotal information of use
cases in a standards document where these do not belong.

Fourth, you are implying to create a new globally unique identier that
is easy to remember in total free form, without any kind of specification.

If you want the IETF to look at your work, you need to separate all these
issues in small defined chunks as see how or if they apply to the IETF
at all. Perhaps ICANN or ITU is a better fit for what you are looking for.

Your document feels like a vague idea, not a specific protocol issue.
I recommend you brainstorm more about your ideas in general, and how
and where it fits into the world. See what is out there, and where it
fits in, and then write very specific drafts. A use case or overview or
architecture document, with a discussion about how current architectures
are not working. And only then start writing drafts that an implementer
could write code for without needing to make any architecture decisions.

It would be good to also become more familiar with IETF and particupate
in more mailing list discussion before writing more drafts. Please see:

https://www.ietf.org/tao

Paul