On 7/1/15, 18:37, "DNSOP on behalf of str4d" <dnsop-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of st...@i2pmail.org> wrote:
>I admit to being highly surprised that you are unfamiliar with the >P2P-Names draft[0], given that it pre-dates the later .onion-only >draft. I don't read everything, and I'm not usually focusing on this. That's the trouble with volunteers. >under RFC 6761. However, neither I2P nor Tor (I cannot speak for the >others) engaged with any standards body before deploying, because >(IMHO, I was not around at the time) That's fair. This is all volunteer. (That is why it's up to the IETF to define how to "react.") >I certainly don't dislike standards processes. Of course not - you are engaging with the process. > What I _do_ dislike is inconsistency and poor documentation/education. Then you've come to the wrong place. ;) > If DNSOP / IETF wants >to ensure that future applications root their name spaces in .alt or >wherever else instead of choosing a .TLD to add to the SUN registry, >then developers _need to know about it_. I personally agree with >Richard that .alt is far more appealing than the struggle to get a >.TLD added to the SUN registry, but the longer it took me to discover >.alt, the harder it would be to justify switching. (It's for this >reason that .i2p is as unlikely as .onion to be moved into .alt, with >well over a decade of use, and .alt not even in existence yet.) You're right. To underscore, it's because of the groups that don't engage, and have no responsibility to do so, that the IETF has to "defend" itself. >It wouldn't take much work Keep in mind that the IETF isn't a "thing", it's a collection of people volunteering time. What I mean to say, not much work, but it's like trying to jump out of the ocean back into a boat [kinda like this: http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/american-football/30744474].
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
