Rocksolid Light

Welcome to RetroBBS

mail  files  register  newsreader  groups  login

Message-ID:  

At many levels, Perl is a "diagonal" language. -- Larry Wall in <199709021854.LAA12794@wall.org>

devel / comp.infosystems.gemini / Re: Intend to standardize via RFC?

SubjectAuthor
* Intend to standardize via RFC?Dan Luedtke
+* Re: Intend to standardize via RFC?Szczezuja.space
|`* Re: Intend to standardize via RFC?danrl
| `- Re: Intend to standardize via RFC?Christian Seibold
`* Re: Intend to standardize via RFC?Sean Conner
 +* Re: Intend to standardize via RFC?dunne
 |`* Re: Intend to standardize via RFC?mbays
 | `- Re: Intend to standardize via RFC?dunne
 `- Re: Intend to standardize via RFC?Christian Seibold

1
Intend to standardize via RFC?

<slrnt98c4v.15v1.danrl@tunafish.local>

  copy mid

https://www.rocksolidbbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=253&group=comp.infosystems.gemini#253

  copy link   Newsgroups: comp.infosystems.gemini
Path: i2pn2.org!rocksolid2!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: d@x.gl (Dan Luedtke)
Newsgroups: comp.infosystems.gemini
Subject: Intend to standardize via RFC?
Date: Mon, 30 May 2022 02:49:03 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 9
Message-ID: <slrnt98c4v.15v1.danrl@tunafish.local>
Injection-Date: Mon, 30 May 2022 02:49:03 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="491e1ced49e762a56f9ec68913aa0bf1";
logging-data="22069"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19Ws4egVCH7NMhx/7t1sHfd"
User-Agent: slrn/1.0.3 (Darwin)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Tohc/SaOV+Se88r8DhoDrsvtvwU=
 by: Dan Luedtke - Mon, 30 May 2022 02:49 UTC

Are there efforts underway to standardize Gemini via IETF RFC?

Gemini the protocol and gemtext the file format are currently in a single
specification. Furthermore, the specification is a bit blurry around the edges
as Stephane Bortzmeyer pointed out a while ago. I've read various opinions
regarding TOFU and certificate change/renewal.. Embarking on the route to RFC
could improve the specification without changing its simplicity.

What's the sentiment regarding a clearer specification?

Re: Intend to standardize via RFC?

<slrnt9a655.1onok.szczezuja@vps648005.ovh.net>

  copy mid

https://www.rocksolidbbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=255&group=comp.infosystems.gemini#255

  copy link   Newsgroups: comp.infosystems.gemini
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!pz9O57YImhWMuqd0J5Dc7A.user.46.165.242.75.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: szczezuja@sdf.org (Szczezuja.space)
Newsgroups: comp.infosystems.gemini
Subject: Re: Intend to standardize via RFC?
Date: Mon, 30 May 2022 19:19:01 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID: <slrnt9a655.1onok.szczezuja@vps648005.ovh.net>
References: <slrnt98c4v.15v1.danrl@tunafish.local>
Injection-Info: gioia.aioe.org; logging-data="12999"; posting-host="pz9O57YImhWMuqd0J5Dc7A.user.gioia.aioe.org"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@aioe.org";
User-Agent: slrn/1.0.3 (Linux)
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2
 by: Szczezuja.space - Mon, 30 May 2022 19:19 UTC

On 2022-05-30, Dan Luedtke <d@x.gl> wrote:
> Furthermore, the specification is a bit blurry around the edges
> as Stephane Bortzmeyer pointed out a while ago.

Could you write something more. Is it on this group? I can't find it
probably.

--
.-=-. Szczezuja; on the small-net:
( S\ \ gemini://szczezuja.space/ - gemlog & tinylog
`--' / gopher://sdf.org:70/0/users/szczezuja/ - phlog

Re: Intend to standardize via RFC?

<t73id3$9pa$1@dont-email.me>

  copy mid

https://www.rocksolidbbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=257&group=comp.infosystems.gemini#257

  copy link   Newsgroups: comp.infosystems.gemini
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: spc@lucy.roswell.conman.org (Sean Conner)
Newsgroups: comp.infosystems.gemini
Subject: Re: Intend to standardize via RFC?
Date: Mon, 30 May 2022 23:01:56 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: Conman Laboratories
Lines: 20
Message-ID: <t73id3$9pa$1@dont-email.me>
References: <slrnt98c4v.15v1.danrl@tunafish.local>
Reply-To: sean@conman.org
Injection-Date: Mon, 30 May 2022 23:01:56 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="5b160fd5eef70930074dacf23cb9cbe0";
logging-data="10026"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19nvZ3bdMVY/RtvH7QTkXgL"
User-Agent: tin/2.4.0-20160823 ("Octomore") (UNIX) (Linux/2.6.9-100.EL.plus.c4smp (i686))
Cancel-Lock: sha1:DY0NyQi83NyUbYLtIS8/nRzJgao=
 by: Sean Conner - Mon, 30 May 2022 23:01 UTC

Dan Luedtke <d@x.gl> wrote:
> Are there efforts underway to standardize Gemini via IETF RFC?

If there is, it's flying way under the radar.

> Gemini the protocol and gemtext the file format are currently in a single
> specification. Furthermore, the specification is a bit blurry around the edges
> as Stephane Bortzmeyer pointed out a while ago. I've read various opinions
> regarding TOFU and certificate change/renewal.. Embarking on the route to RFC
> could improve the specification without changing its simplicity.
>
> What's the sentiment regarding a clearer specification?

If my experience in Gemini is anything to go by, it's not going to happen.
Solderpunk has basically disappeared, and his appointed assistant resigned
after a few months. I'm not saying the project is dead, but further
clarifications of the protocol and text format probably is.

-spc

Re: Intend to standardize via RFC?

<slrnt9amae.1br2.d@tunafish.local>

  copy mid

https://www.rocksolidbbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=258&group=comp.infosystems.gemini#258

  copy link   Newsgroups: comp.infosystems.gemini
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: d@x.gl (danrl)
Newsgroups: comp.infosystems.gemini
Subject: Re: Intend to standardize via RFC?
Date: Mon, 30 May 2022 23:54:54 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 12
Message-ID: <slrnt9amae.1br2.d@tunafish.local>
References: <slrnt98c4v.15v1.danrl@tunafish.local>
<slrnt9a655.1onok.szczezuja@vps648005.ovh.net>
Reply-To: danrl <d@x.gl>
Injection-Date: Mon, 30 May 2022 23:54:54 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="8fb6fb26aab270e4d71860e0715aeb3b";
logging-data="31948"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19YGORBMN6FcuItIIQJci5S"
User-Agent: slrn/1.0.3 (Darwin)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:QM3FNdw02Irc8Zcn9ljH8ZHrilw=
 by: danrl - Mon, 30 May 2022 23:54 UTC

On 2022-05-30, Szczezuja.space <szczezuja@sdf.org> wrote:
> On 2022-05-30, Dan Luedtke <d@x.gl> wrote:
>> Furthermore, the specification is a bit blurry around the edges
>> as Stephane Bortzmeyer pointed out a while ago.
>
> Could you write something more. Is it on this group? I can't find it
> probably.

Here you go:

=> gemini://gemini.bortzmeyer.org/gemini/missing.gmi

Re: Intend to standardize via RFC?

<t73rav$ddm$1@gioia.aioe.org>

  copy mid

https://www.rocksolidbbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=259&group=comp.infosystems.gemini#259

  copy link   Newsgroups: comp.infosystems.gemini
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!1PweAriSyEzooO4r1YpOhg.user.46.165.242.75.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: degrowther@protonmail.com (dunne)
Newsgroups: comp.infosystems.gemini
Subject: Re: Intend to standardize via RFC?
Date: Tue, 31 May 2022 01:34:23 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID: <t73rav$ddm$1@gioia.aioe.org>
References: <slrnt98c4v.15v1.danrl@tunafish.local>
<t73id3$9pa$1@dont-email.me>
Injection-Info: gioia.aioe.org; logging-data="13750"; posting-host="1PweAriSyEzooO4r1YpOhg.user.gioia.aioe.org"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@aioe.org";
User-Agent: slrn/1.0.3 (Linux)
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2
 by: dunne - Tue, 31 May 2022 01:34 UTC

On 2022-05-30, Sean Conner <spc@lucy.roswell.conman.org> wrote:
> Dan Luedtke <d@x.gl> wrote:
>> Are there efforts underway to standardize Gemini via IETF RFC?
>
> If there is, it's flying way under the radar.
>
>> Gemini the protocol and gemtext the file format are currently in a single
>> specification. Furthermore, the specification is a bit blurry around the
>> edges as Stephane Bortzmeyer pointed out a while ago. I've read various
>> opinions regarding TOFU and certificate change/renewal.. Embarking on the
>> route to RFC could improve the specification without changing its
>> simplicity.
>>
>> What's the sentiment regarding a clearer specification?
>
> If my experience in Gemini is anything to go by, it's not going to happen.
> Solderpunk has basically disappeared, and his appointed assistant resigned
> after a few months. I'm not saying the project is dead, but further
> clarifications of the protocol and text format probably is.

Is Solderpunk "in charge" beyond the fact that there was community consensus
that they were? Is there anything preventing from the community from saying,
"Solderpunk is MIA, we're going to figure out a new way to move forward without
a single person 'in charge'"?

--d

Re: Intend to standardize via RFC?

<slrnt9cov4.h35.mbays@ma.sdf.org>

  copy mid

https://www.rocksolidbbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=261&group=comp.infosystems.gemini#261

  copy link   Newsgroups: comp.infosystems.gemini
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx10.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.infosystems.gemini
From: mbays@sdf.org
Subject: Re: Intend to standardize via RFC?
References: <slrnt98c4v.15v1.danrl@tunafish.local>
<t73id3$9pa$1@dont-email.me> <t73rav$ddm$1@gioia.aioe.org>
User-Agent: slrn/1.0.3 (Linux)
Message-ID: <slrnt9cov4.h35.mbays@ma.sdf.org>
Lines: 10
X-Complaints-To: abuse(at)newshosting.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 31 May 2022 18:52:20 UTC
Organization: Newshosting.com - Highest quality at a great price! www.newshosting.com
Date: Tue, 31 May 2022 18:52:20 GMT
X-Received-Bytes: 1078
 by: mbays@sdf.org - Tue, 31 May 2022 18:52 UTC

On 2022-05-31, dunne <degrowther@protonmail.com> wrote:
>
> Is there anything preventing from the community from saying,
> "Solderpunk is MIA, we're going to figure out a new way to move
> forward without a single person 'in charge'"?

No, and this newsgroup would be a good place for such an effort, but
I think it would be premature. Solderpunk made the last changes to the
spec only 4 months ago, 30.01.2022, and he seemed to be intending to
deal with the remaining issues in due course.

Re: Intend to standardize via RFC?

<t75t64$16ib$1@gioia.aioe.org>

  copy mid

https://www.rocksolidbbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=262&group=comp.infosystems.gemini#262

  copy link   Newsgroups: comp.infosystems.gemini
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!1PweAriSyEzooO4r1YpOhg.user.46.165.242.75.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: degrowther@protonmail.com (dunne)
Newsgroups: comp.infosystems.gemini
Subject: Re: Intend to standardize via RFC?
Date: Tue, 31 May 2022 20:18:13 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID: <t75t64$16ib$1@gioia.aioe.org>
References: <slrnt98c4v.15v1.danrl@tunafish.local>
<t73id3$9pa$1@dont-email.me> <t73rav$ddm$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<slrnt9cov4.h35.mbays@ma.sdf.org>
Injection-Info: gioia.aioe.org; logging-data="39499"; posting-host="1PweAriSyEzooO4r1YpOhg.user.gioia.aioe.org"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@aioe.org";
User-Agent: slrn/1.0.3 (Linux)
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2
 by: dunne - Tue, 31 May 2022 20:18 UTC

On 2022-05-31, mbays@sdf.org <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
> On 2022-05-31, dunne <degrowther@protonmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Is there anything preventing from the community from saying,
>> "Solderpunk is MIA, we're going to figure out a new way to move
>> forward without a single person 'in charge'"?
>
> No, and this newsgroup would be a good place for such an effort, but
> I think it would be premature.

That's fair. I'm just a nerd who happens to be as interested in community
governance models as communication protocols. Maybe not even the only one. :)

--d

Re: Intend to standardize via RFC?

<ta3cqe$jj0$1@gioia.aioe.org>

  copy mid

https://www.rocksolidbbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=287&group=comp.infosystems.gemini#287

  copy link   Newsgroups: comp.infosystems.gemini
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!O7AS2VhqNgaCQzOyGMpRNQ.user.46.165.242.75.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: krixano@mailbox.org (Christian Seibold)
Newsgroups: comp.infosystems.gemini
Subject: Re: Intend to standardize via RFC?
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2022 02:15:26 -0500
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID: <ta3cqe$jj0$1@gioia.aioe.org>
References: <slrnt98c4v.15v1.danrl@tunafish.local>
<t73id3$9pa$1@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Info: gioia.aioe.org; logging-data="20064"; posting-host="O7AS2VhqNgaCQzOyGMpRNQ.user.gioia.aioe.org"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@aioe.org";
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.5.0
Content-Language: en-US
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2
 by: Christian Seibold - Wed, 6 Jul 2022 07:15 UTC

On 5/30/2022 6:01 PM, Sean Conner wrote:
> Dan Luedtke <d@x.gl> wrote:
>> Are there efforts underway to standardize Gemini via IETF RFC?
>
> If there is, it's flying way under the radar.
>
>> Gemini the protocol and gemtext the file format are currently in a single
>> specification. Furthermore, the specification is a bit blurry around the edges
>> as Stephane Bortzmeyer pointed out a while ago. I've read various opinions
>> regarding TOFU and certificate change/renewal.. Embarking on the route to RFC
>> could improve the specification without changing its simplicity.
>>
>> What's the sentiment regarding a clearer specification?
>
> If my experience in Gemini is anything to go by, it's not going to happen.
> Solderpunk has basically disappeared, and his appointed assistant resigned
> after a few months. I'm not saying the project is dead, but further
> clarifications of the protocol and text format probably is.
>
> -spc
>

Note: Reposting this, since I used Thunderbird's "Reply" instead of
"Followup", which do different things apparently.

Solderpunk is definitely not gone. He just made another post last month
celebrating 3 years of gemini. We should not jump to conclusions just
because we haven't seen Solderpunk for only 4

Re: Intend to standardize via RFC?

<ta3db7$12np$1@gioia.aioe.org>

  copy mid

https://www.rocksolidbbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=289&group=comp.infosystems.gemini#289

  copy link   Newsgroups: comp.infosystems.gemini
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!O7AS2VhqNgaCQzOyGMpRNQ.user.46.165.242.75.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: krixano@mailbox.org (Christian Seibold)
Newsgroups: comp.infosystems.gemini
Subject: Re: Intend to standardize via RFC?
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2022 02:24:23 -0500
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID: <ta3db7$12np$1@gioia.aioe.org>
References: <slrnt98c4v.15v1.danrl@tunafish.local>
<slrnt9a655.1onok.szczezuja@vps648005.ovh.net>
<slrnt9amae.1br2.d@tunafish.local>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Info: gioia.aioe.org; logging-data="35577"; posting-host="O7AS2VhqNgaCQzOyGMpRNQ.user.gioia.aioe.org"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@aioe.org";
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.5.0
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2
Content-Language: en-US
 by: Christian Seibold - Wed, 6 Jul 2022 07:24 UTC

On 5/30/2022 6:54 PM, danrl wrote:
> On 2022-05-30, Szczezuja.space <szczezuja@sdf.org> wrote:
>> On 2022-05-30, Dan Luedtke <d@x.gl> wrote:
>>> Furthermore, the specification is a bit blurry around the edges
>>> as Stephane Bortzmeyer pointed out a while ago.
>>
>> Could you write something more. Is it on this group? I can't find it
>> probably.
>
> Here you go:
>
> => gemini://gemini.bortzmeyer.org/gemini/missing.gmi
>

Some of the things on that page have already been fixed. Other things
are more questioning the spec (particularly TOFU), and other things have
had fairly active discussions (URIs) on the repos. Also, this list
doesn't look like it's getting updated often.

1
server_pubkey.txt

rocksolid light 0.9.81
clearnet tor