Re: [apps-discuss] Retroactive application of draft-ietf-appsawg-uri-scheme-reg - comprehensive review

[Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>]

>> John (and others), please check the -06 version, looking
>> especially at the new last paragraph of Section 7.1.  I
>> believe that takes care of this case by codifying how Graham
>> already handles registration requests that come from IETF
>> working groups.
>
> That section, and the other changes from -05, represent huge
> improvements.  Thanks.

Great.

> More important, neither the changes nor your note address the
> particular issue that caused my review and concerns about
> draft-ietf-appsawg-uri-scheme-reg.  The issue was the claim that
> this document imposed additional constraints or requirements in
> addition to those of RFC 3986, requirements that could (or did)
> invalidate what the URNBIS WG is trying to do with
> draft-ietf-urnbis-semantics-clarif.
>
> I believe the key issue is that, as far as the _syntax_
> specified in RFC 3986 is concerned, there is a syntax component,
> given the name "fragment" in the defining production, that,
> informally, is delimited by the first appearance of "#" in a URI
> and that extends to the end of the URI.  Anything more --
> bindings to schemes, relationships to media types, even the
> binding of the term "fragment" to anything one might find in a
> dictionary-- are matters of semantics (or maybe something else)
> but not syntax.

I understand the concern here, and as I read the rest of the
conversation I see that we still have controversy about details such
as fragment vs syntax vs semantics, and such.

That said, I don't think that controversy affects this document.  I
think this document says what it needs to say about the registration
and update of URI schemes, and the roles of the DE and of working
group/community consensus.  I don't think there's a benefit to holding
up this document for the resolution of those other issues, which we'll
continue bashing around here and in the urnbis working group.

So I plan to push "GO" on this document imminently.  If you think this
absolutely *must* be resolved before this document is published,
please say why we can't defer it to discussion of 2141bis, an update
to 3986, or some other such.

We do need this uri scheme registration update -- which primarily
relaxes and clarifies existing rules -- and I don't want to make it
wait longer if we can handle the controversies elsewhere.

Barry