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

"Mykyta Yevstifeyev (М. Євстіфеєв)" <evnikita2@gmail.com> Mon, 21 November 2011 11:31 UTC

Return-Path: <evnikita2@gmail.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 59BD321F8BA6 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Nov 2011 03:31:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.313
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.313 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.014, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 v7g5jWSBHOQe for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Nov 2011 03:31:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-bw0-f44.google.com (mail-bw0-f44.google.com [209.85.214.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8564F21F8B9B for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Nov 2011 03:31:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: by bkbzv15 with SMTP id zv15so7371552bkb.31 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Nov 2011 03:31:09 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=xpg4Q56s/dilhO8f3JPMaUhCbf76RM2k4wfFxTi8xE0=; b=yDp5yl2Kvfo07pW0OuXzVi6qqQc/9G/RvXOM4x1ZvlnRDqcwcTizYy4k4kVWmjyijx 7HhbsZuEXAVI0fPBtziirvKnQIOOBvUPUF2qzweIBpRX6PmtYX6MO96Gqm1lEpFOmrR9 azLza30fM+2w8Ki10Yv/R39YPpt688FNhtVdw=
Received: by 10.204.130.90 with SMTP id r26mr14245384bks.46.1321875069579; Mon, 21 Nov 2011 03:31:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([195.191.104.224]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id x14sm7019629bkf.10.2011.11.21.03.31.07 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 21 Nov 2011 03:31:08 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <4ECA36AF.7050102@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2011 13:31:59 +0200
From: =?UTF-8?B?Ik15a3l0YSBZZXZzdGlmZXlldiAo0JwuINCE0LLRgdGC0ZbRhNC10ZTQsg==?= =?UTF-8?B?KSI=?= <evnikita2@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
References: <4EC16815.80501@gmail.com> <4EC8B6D9.3080507@isode.com>
In-Reply-To: <4EC8B6D9.3080507@isode.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
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 11:31:12 -0000

20.11.2011 10:14, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
> 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.

This can't be allowed as we need to provide a specification in terms of 
what is defined by Section 7 of RFC 2026.  Whenever the special-purpose 
URI is defined, we should ensure that it is the part of some 
standardization effort by some organization, and not me wanting to 
register "about:yevstifeyev" mandatory displaying my name (that's 
actually why I still like Specification required with DE involved, but 
must follow community consensus on this.)

Mykyta Yevstifeyev

>
> 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.
>
>