📅 Original date posted:2012-11-27
📝 Original message:>> We are not establishing an IETF working group, which is an option that
>> was explored prior to the Paris meeting and has been sidelined at
>> present for depth-of-bureaucracy by the backing commercial entities.
>> Rather, we are establishing a top-level IANA registry group. This is
>> not anticipated by the IETF old-guard working with us to be either (a)
>> controversial or (b) possible to block.
>
> My last note in this sub-thread.
Mine too!
> There are no IANA registry groups, there is no such thing, and no way
> to form one.
Reading between the lines, I believe this phrase, which is not my own
but that of experienced IETF staff, refers to the groups visible at
http://www.iana.org/protocols/ (which you yourself cited). Whether it
is formally used or not is unknown to me.
> The IETF can ask the IANA to form a registry but these
> things take lots of support and take a long time,
Expert opinion estimates six weeks, and by current estimates, we
should have an arrival circa February.
> and these are only
> created through standards track RFC. ICANN runs the IANA and there is
> no such framework that you elude to. Review
> http://www.iana.org/protocols/
I would like to suggest that perhaps exactly this sort of banter is an
excellent illustration for the Bitcoin community of what we have been
up against in this (conceivable simple an public benefit oriented)
endeavour. If you also look at the fact that the ISO4217 registry (to
take currency/commodity codes as just one example) there is apparently
not even a public list of requirements for codepoint issue. This sort
of thing is *exactly* why the internet community appears to
desperately need an open registry - allowing public internet bodies
(IANA) to function to support innovation and interconnectivity for all
sectors of the internet's various financial communities so that
anyone, including innovators, can obtain interoperability via simple,
hassle-free paths, without encountering self-important bureaucrats.
We anticipate victory circa February.
- Walter
Walter Stanish [ARCHIVE] /
npub1w7…wj55c
2023-06-07 10:40:45
in reply to nevent1q…tugl
Author Public Key
npub1w7tezshngplj3fd8r9twxv6zujrwaxq7v98q6t4rdhd0y7u2tfnsmwj55cPublished at
2023-06-07 10:40:45Event JSON
{
"id": "d423146f3350d03e1e92d7eb1af44f61011a7ec77ce58a3a0fc2780ef544d17c",
"pubkey": "77979142f3407f28a5a71956e33342e486ee981e614e0d2ea36ddaf27b8a5a67",
"created_at": 1686134445,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"f5f2400f8aa8a7067be3d080f096fd7cbfeecdd6e589c178b85b63a9338150a5",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"48f057d593e1aa5fe30d2fb9265a370532f8b8d60472892fbeed69412d256bb9",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"308e0d1efb1707ac6b92cd0b19c304882b3919f4bd59336c4a718c159bdcf63b"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2012-11-27\n📝 Original message:\u003e\u003e We are not establishing an IETF working group, which is an option that\n\u003e\u003e was explored prior to the Paris meeting and has been sidelined at\n\u003e\u003e present for depth-of-bureaucracy by the backing commercial entities.\n\u003e\u003e Rather, we are establishing a top-level IANA registry group. This is\n\u003e\u003e not anticipated by the IETF old-guard working with us to be either (a)\n\u003e\u003e controversial or (b) possible to block.\n\u003e\n\u003e My last note in this sub-thread.\n\nMine too!\n\n\u003e There are no IANA registry groups, there is no such thing, and no way\n\u003e to form one.\n\nReading between the lines, I believe this phrase, which is not my own\nbut that of experienced IETF staff, refers to the groups visible at\nhttp://www.iana.org/protocols/ (which you yourself cited). Whether it\nis formally used or not is unknown to me.\n\n\u003e The IETF can ask the IANA to form a registry but these\n\u003e things take lots of support and take a long time,\n\nExpert opinion estimates six weeks, and by current estimates, we\nshould have an arrival circa February.\n\n\u003e and these are only\n\u003e created through standards track RFC. ICANN runs the IANA and there is\n\u003e no such framework that you elude to. Review\n\u003e http://www.iana.org/protocols/\n\nI would like to suggest that perhaps exactly this sort of banter is an\nexcellent illustration for the Bitcoin community of what we have been\nup against in this (conceivable simple an public benefit oriented)\nendeavour. If you also look at the fact that the ISO4217 registry (to\ntake currency/commodity codes as just one example) there is apparently\nnot even a public list of requirements for codepoint issue. This sort\nof thing is *exactly* why the internet community appears to\ndesperately need an open registry - allowing public internet bodies\n(IANA) to function to support innovation and interconnectivity for all\nsectors of the internet's various financial communities so that\nanyone, including innovators, can obtain interoperability via simple,\nhassle-free paths, without encountering self-important bureaucrats.\n\nWe anticipate victory circa February.\n\n- Walter",
"sig": "21a5b507e906b40be1e02e86c523f0731397e8f16614e4f1ab9a01e9c479907111126a23aae94971e189e7df709b314920ae47a97c70c7a50a34032ae558db15"
}