Re: [apps-discuss] [Uri-review] Provisional URI registrations

[Graham Klyne <[e-mail]>]

Michael, thanks for the clarification.  I clearly skimmed the discussion too 
quickly - I didn't pick up that the scheme was lacking a definition.  I think my 
latest response to Alfred applies.

#g
--

Michael Wojcik wrote:
>> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> On Behalf Of Alfred HÎnes
>> Sent: Monday, 22 November, 2010 15:35
>>
>> Graham Klyne wrote:
>>
>>> Having made a very quick review of that discussion (w.r.t. tn3270), I
>>> feel there is a consensus that the appropriate response to to say
>>> "that's fine, it has a definition, let's leave it there".
>> Well, that's been one of the points where opinions seem to differ.
>> I could not find a definition, only RFC 1738 "reserving the name for
>> future definition".  The users of TN3270 service so far have claimed
>> there would be a definition, but nobody has shown it so far, and some
>> indications have been reported of different, non-interoperable
>> definitions as well.  I don't want to take a position on that now.
> 
> As far as I can tell, the situation is this:
> 
> - There is no definition of the tn3270 scheme.
> 
> - There are applications which interpret tn3270 URIs, by starting a client that implements some flavor of TN3270.
> 
> - There is no single definition of a TN3270 service, which is what the scheme presumably refers to. There are definitions of various pieces of Classic TN3270, definitions of "best practices" for Classic TN3270, and a definition of TN3270E.
> 
> - There are various implementations of TN3270 service (client and server), most or all of which are probably not fully compliant with the various definitions.
> 
> - Those implementations are generally interoperable, but sometimes with caveats (eg reduced functionality).
> 
> So I think it's fair to say that:
> 
> 1) There is no definition of the tn3270 scheme.
> 
> 2) While there's a working understanding of what specifications contribute to a "standard" implementation of TN3270 service, there is no single definition of that service. That makes defining the scheme more difficult.
> 
> I'd also suggest that while a single definition of the TN3270 service, and a definition and proper registration of the tn3270 scheme, are desirable, in practice I don't believe they'd have much effect. IBM hasn't shown any inclination to bring its client implementation into conformance with the extant TN3270E specification (RFC 2355), for example.
> 
> I don't have strong feelings about whether the "tn3270" scheme is labelled "provisional" or "historic". Again, I don't think it will make any difference to implementors, who will treat tn3270-scheme URIs however they like. (I'm an implementor myself, but thus far I've only dealt with the server side, which never sees such URIs, so it hasn't come up.)
>