Ted, I remember having a some concerns and suggestions about these
long ago and unfortunately since this was not on the agenda, I did not
read them before the meeting. I'd be glad to go and dig up notes and
try and review these but unlikely to really do anything until after
the meeting. Sorry for the late review but thought I would at least
say I will read it all soon. I'd like to get the base spec changed to
be unified with whatever we do here.
Cullen <with my individual hat on>
On Mar 9, 2009, at 12:04 , Ted Hardie wrote:
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
_______________________________________________
P2PSIP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
