Re: [apps-discuss] draft-ietf-appsawg-about-uri-scheme

Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> Mon, 21 November 2011 10:21 UTC

Return-Path: <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD83B21F8B98 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Nov 2011 02:21:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.19
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.19 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.109, BAYES_00=-2.599, DATE_IN_PAST_24_48=1.219, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NSqo-sN7jkyU for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Nov 2011 02:21:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rufus.isode.com (rufus.isode.com [62.3.217.251]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F43421F8B8D for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Nov 2011 02:21:52 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1321870908; d=isode.com; s=selector; i=@isode.com; bh=7TUtcmfey+e8DY5a+yUN2f8RU4TBwtO+I6KkOaX1g94=; h=From:Sender:Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:To:Cc:MIME-Version: In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-ID:Content-Description; b=HD+q2ZbgdKAf2ej1t/UAHTpcOsmD3BnB4O+FHiuWs02DU31hIWUCHzkxIhhnw6ntrqzo2F viwTAWrPTL20VUmD8EFmm/wYxCAgX8iIQsNCE9kWv8HuBJchc+BGThlCWQiHci4C+JQfvp hY7Um8SP7F/6R6m3V3HROYwm6dlykCA=;
Received: from [192.168.1.144] ((unknown) [62.3.217.253]) by rufus.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPSA id <TsomNwAFEEBe@rufus.isode.com>; Mon, 21 Nov 2011 10:21:48 +0000
X-SMTP-Protocol-Errors: NORDNS
Message-ID: <4EC8B6D9.3080507@isode.com>
Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2011 08:14:17 +0000
From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0
To: =?UTF-8?B?Ik15a3l0YSBZZXZzdGlmZXlldiAo0JwuINCE0LLRgdGC0ZbRhNC10ZTQsiki?= <evnikita2@gmail.com>
References: <4EC16815.80501@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <4EC16815.80501@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: Apps-discuss list <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] draft-ietf-appsawg-about-uri-scheme
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2011 10:21:56 -0000

On 14/11/2011 19:12, "Mykyta Yevstifeyev (М. Євстіфеєв)" wrote:
> Hello,
>
> From minutes:
>
>> 09:05 draft-ietf-appsawg-about-uri-scheme (chairs)
>>
>> Room consensus for registry to be FCFS with minimal doc via template.
>
> That is what the WG reached at the previous meeting and what is not 
> there currently is in the doc.  Before it became a WG item, the 
> authors, ADs and me did have a discussion on this point, but there was 
> no agreement - that's why it became WG item.  What I actually think is 
> that FCFS should be appropriate, but there is no point of adding a 
> registry entry given no specification available whereas the MUST 
> restriction is imposed.  Recently Barry has sent me the following 
> proposal: to have the policy FCFS but make specification reference 
> mandatory for registration.  Therefore, if there is nobody who 
> objects, I may change the following text in IANA Considerations:
>
> OLD:
>
>>     The registration policy for new entries is "Specification Required",
>>     as defined in RFC 5226 [RFC5226].  Additionally, the following
>>     template MUST be provided by the registrant:
>
> NEW:
>
>>     The registration policy for new entries is "First Come First 
>> Served",
>>     as defined in RFC 5226 [RFC5226].  Additionally, the following
>>     template MUST be provided by the registrant:
>
> OLD:
>
>>     o Published specifications:  A reference to the published
>>       specification for the registered token.
>
> NEW:
>
>>     o Published specifications:  A reference to the stable specification
>>       MUST be provided.
I think allowing for specifications in an email message to IANA (or 
similar) should be sufficient, as long as IANA archives a copy of the 
registration on their website.

Otherwise this looks Ok.
>> The specification SHALL cover what the SPU
>>       with the token being registered ought to resolve to, and SHOULD
>>       cover other issues related to SPU usage.
> Any comments are welcome.