So, I have updated draft-hardie-p2psip-p2p-pointers to 01, eliminating the
MIME type and focusing on the URIs. I would like to ask two questions:
1) Does anyone object to a request for provisional registration at this point,
so we can start experimenting with these? As a sub bullet, does
anyone have feedback on the IANA registries requested by this doc and
have any objections/input/better ideas?
2) Is anyone interested in progressing the MIME type work? I took it out
because it seemed to overlap the application/p2p-overlay+xml stuff in
the reload base draft, and I didn't want too much confusion. I think the cases
are distinguishable, but I wasn't sure anyone wanted the pointers to be that
distinct from bootstrap information. If anyone does care, speaking up now would
be handy.
A short discussion during the meeting would resolve this, but if folks have
opinions
now and want to put them onto the mailing list, we can also likely resolve it
here.
If we do want to go forward on the URI side now, the next steps would be
discussion
on the uri-review and uri mailing lists.
regards,
Ted
_______________________________________________
P2PSIP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
