Subject: [P2PSIP] possible agenda request

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2009 12:04:17 -0700

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

---

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2009 07:36:40 -0700

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:

> _______________________________________________
> P2PSIP mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip