On Jan 20, 2016, at 6:04 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker
<phill(_at_)hallambaker(_dot_)com> wrote:
On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 7:32 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot(_at_)mnot(_dot_)net>
wrote:
On 21 Jan 2016, at 12:47 am, Phillip Hallam-Baker
<phill(_at_)hallambaker(_dot_)com> wrote:
The reason I picked on 5785 is that it was the one that the DE refused to
give any explanation of the need for when I asked in private.
Since you bring it up -
You sent me one brief e-mail making a couple of suggestions about how the
registry process could be changed, motivating them with your "mmm" proposal.
I responded affirmatively to an observation you made, and to the suggestions
noted:
"""
The relationship with that registry was discussed in LC, and we explicitly
decided NOT to tie them together, IIRC.
"""
That was why I re-raised the issue on apps-discuss. You didn't seem
interested in giving an explanation of the need for the registry then
either. Instead you stated that a decision had been reached as if that
was the end of the matter.
I do not expect you to provide statistics as DE. However when you make
a series of assertions about the need for the registry characterizing
it as essential to protect the integrity of the Internet, I do expect
that you would justify such a surprising claim with instances where
you believe that to have been the case.
You have repeatedly asked me to provide technical details and then
completely ignored the explanations I have given.
Finally, what you took as being 'bad behavior' on my part was when I
pointed out that I knew that you were the DE rather than another
individual. Which I did at the request of an AD who thought that it
appeared that I was suggesting the registry be merged on account of
his behavior.
From the start you appear to have been attempting to find an excuse to
refuse to engage with the substance of my proposal questioning the
form, the technology and finally after one of your allies makes two
very personal ad hominem attacks, calling my proposal 'mindbogglingly
stupid' and then calling me a liar you are attempting to call an end
to the discussion by alleging bad behavior on my part.
The apps-discuss discussion of which you speak is entirely archived
and available for anyone to review:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?email_list=apps-discuss&gbt=1&index=P2fsI3FuxG1-GoRyxKnHR7o9zic
The only person who ever used the word "stupid" is you. What I did write in
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/apps-discuss/s0JohIW0qcr7ajHUDyJD4bJP86U
is "brain-numbingly poor use of those protocols", which has an entirely
different meaning than the one you represent here. It isn't a personal
attack (nor is it ad hominem, which means the same thing). After repeated
misrepresentation of what I wrote, IN QUOTES, I sent the following message
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/apps-discuss/f2D7iH0Gdv4Ay4VSd2WgtaOpLP8
to which you responded with more misrepresentation. And above you have
chosen to quote the phrase 'mindbogglingly stupid', with indirect attribution
to me, which cannot be found in any of my correspondence because
I DID NOT WRITE IT!
Regardless, all of that was on apps-discuss. None of it is a registration
request for the .well-known registry, nor is it reasonable to expect a DE
to respond to private email discussion as if it is a registration request.
Actual registration requests go to the wellknown-uri-review mailing list:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?email_list=wellknown-uri-review
where anyone can see several instances of the registry working quite fine,
as defined by the RFC, with fairly quick responses regardless of any
disagreements. FWIW, Mark does a good job even when I disagree with a
particular use of .well-known.
For the record, I have yet to hear one argument from you, or for that
matter anyone else as to why two separate registries are needed at
all.
The simplest argument is because most of the existing wk registry entries
are not services and don't want to be listed as SRV names. I certainly
don't want the name "dnt" to be associated (in any way) with SRV.
It should be clear that most of the others wouldn't fit either.
http://www.iana.org/assignments/well-known-uris/well-known-uris.xhtml
The purpose of the registry is defined here:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5785#section-1.1
and it makes no mention of the use of .well-known for service redirection.
Nor should it.
However, I personally have no objection to registering something like
/.well-known/srv/ as a namespace under which you can FCFS whatever names
you might like (or automatically adopt SRV names), unencumbered by a DE,
and that would accomplish the exact same purpose. Mark made a similar
suggestion in his first response to you. All you need to do is write a
spec that defines the purpose for which the namespace has been allocated.
....Roy