On 2/22/16 6:21 PM, George Michaelson wrote: > > > On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 3:05 PM, Paul Wouters <p...@nohats.ca > <mailto:p...@nohats.ca>> wrote: > > Face to face time is rare. It also does not include everyone that's on > the list. So where possible, discussion on the lists is always > preferred. > > > A good bar. A high bar. A high bar, which I don't think the "design > team" output can meet because I've checked the archives, to match my > memory, and substantive discussion on the qualities of the idea of > having a registry are few: there are nits on the words of the revision, > but we've yet to actually broach "do we want to do this" in any real form. > > So consider the door open on that discussion: > > Folks: Do we *really* want to do this? Do we really *want* to revise > RFC6761? Can we talk about this a bit? > > Me? I don't want to do this. I want a process that is so rarely invoked, > you have to be a lot taller to get on the ride, than at present. I want > a substantive IETF-wide technically understood reason that is breaking > architecture, avoiding URI methods, requiring code, that we all understand.
The part I like about your proposed position is that it's unequivical. > And certainly not "because a lot of users now depend on it, because we > squatted" Oddly I'm not enthused by this as a reason for existing or future 6761 registration reuest, technical merit or necessity on the other hand is not carte blanche to employ 6761 or at least is doesn't seem to be and matters of taste are hard to fence in with objective criteria. > -G > > > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > DNSOP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
