Re: [apps-discuss] WGLC: draft-ietf-appsawg-about-uri-scheme-03.txt

["Murray S. Kucherawy" <[e-mail]>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Barry Leiba
> Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2012 7:35 PM
> To: Murray S. Kucherawy
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] WGLC: draft-ietf-appsawg-about-uri-scheme-03.txt
> 
> > [Relatively] Minor Issues:
> > I'm not so sure about use of RFC2119 language in the IANA
> > Considerations section.  You're not really describing
> > interoperability requirements with IANA.
> 
> I'm sure.  And it's my text -- this is one that Mykyta doesn't like.
> The three MUSTs in there are not directed at IANA, but at people
> writing new registrations.  They tell those people what their
> registrations have to look like, and I wanted to use MUST to stress
> that even though this is an FCFS policy, there are requirements
> nonetheless.

I think my point is that the IANA Considerations section spells out the rules for a new registry when the registry is created, especially when conformant with RFC5226.  Everything in such a section is essentially a MUST, because you're either filling out or defining a template and the registry's initial entries.  I can't imagine a "This field SHOULD/MAY contain..." anywhere in an IANA Considerations section, except maybe optional fields, but they're typically labeled as such in the first place.

In the case of this draft, the second MUST in particular seems unnecessary.  If the first one were changed to "has to" or similar, I have some doubts that IANA would start slipping in invalid tokens.  And for the third one, they're already pretty good at preferring (or even requiring?) permanent document links without this document having to say so.

I don't feel particularly strongly about this.  It just seems unnecessary.

> > [Absolutely] Nits:
> > All of these are either reductions of overly-wordy text or fixes to
> minor grammar nits, or both.
> ...
> >        OLD
> >                The concept of "about" URIs has been formed at the
> > times when the
> >                applications did not have the "friendly" user
> > interface, in order to
> >                provide an access to the aforementioned resources via
> > typing the URIs
> ...
> >        NEW
> >                The concept of "about" URIs formed when applications
> > did not have a
> >                "friendly" user interface, to enable access to the
> > aforementioned
> >                resources by typing URIs into an address bar or
> similar feature.
> ...
> 
> Yeah, good luck with that.  I tried to convince Mykyta to tone the
> rhetoric down in there, and he declined... and I didn't see it as
> important enough to fight about.

Well, parts of it are grammatically incorrect and the RFC Editor will have to fix them anyway, but a lot of my nits attempted to simplify needlessly wordy or overly formal paragraphs.  I hope the authors will give them a second look.

-MSK