💾 Archived View for rawtext.club › ~sloum › geminilist › 006209.gmi captured on 2023-09-08 at 17:03:52. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[spec] Will Gemini ever become a standardized protocol?

Bradley D. Thornton Bradley at NorthTech.US

Sat Mar 27 00:30:43 GMT 2021

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

On 3/25/2021 1:59 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:

On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 08:26:03AM +0100,

almaember <almaember at disroot.org> wrote

a message of 34 lines which said:

And Gemini might also get into projects like cURL.

Indeed, many projects may hesitate to include Gemini patches if the

scheme is not a registered one.

I think that's pretty much a non-issue, already, TLS support for gopheris included in curl, so the notion that Gemini needs some special hattip from a large body is a weak argument IMO:

https://github.com/curl/curl/commit/a1f06f32b8603427535fc21183a84ce92a9b96f7

These "projects", weigh the intrinsic value of a protocol being includedon meritious points, rather than being favored by a kingship. Does itadd value to Unices? Does it merit support on its own... etc. And, ofcourse, do you have any friends with commit privleges or influence? Thatalways helps lol.

Critical mass, which Gemini is closely approaching, is a much strongeruse case anyway.

Even the IRC RFC's are decrepit and outdated, and IRCv3 is a standardsbody unto itself, with nothing having been suffered. Other popularcommunications protocols aren't bothering with approvals fromsnail-paced bureaucracies either, because it's a generally considered bymany of them as a hindrance to innovation, although at some point thisis definitely something we should have on the roadmap - just notsomething to fret over now.

And I think we're getting a little ahead of ourselves by looking at adraft RFC at this point too. When the Spec is finalized, then it will bea good time to address those issues, having worked in that area in thepast at length.

I should have said something sooner on the gitlab issue tracker but gotsidetracked. I'll get around to it in a few days.

The matter of Tivoli was raised here a few weeks back. It's basically adead horse, and the domain itself for the registration now belongs toCSC - I don't think that's actually part of IBM's properties ("yet", hesays sardonically). I could be mistaken there, of course. I haven'tchecked that far.

We're certainly not dealing with, or looking at having to contend withWIPO on the whole port registration issue.

So yes, it's certainly a roadmap item, but at this juncture it's morelike putting the cart before the horse. We're building great thingshere, and there's an invigorated community focused on that, which is themost pertinent measure of success by any means.

-- Bradley D. ThorntonManager Network Serviceshttp://NorthTech.USTEL: +1.310.421.8268