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

21 марта 2012 г. 9:45 пользователь Murray S. Kucherawy
<msk@cloudmark.com>написал:

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com [mailto:
> barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Barry Leiba
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2012 7:35 PM
> > To: Murray S. Kucherawy
> > Cc: apps-discuss@ietf.org
> > 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.
>

I see we've agreed on dropping 2119 language here.  I'll change this to
non-normaitve equivalents.

>
> > > [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.
>

Again thanks to Murray for these nits.

Mykyta Yevstifeyev

>
> -MSK
> _______________________________________________
> apps-discuss mailing list
> apps-discuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
>