Re: [apps-discuss] Feeling kind of confused about draft-merrick-jms-uri-12

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

--On Wednesday, January 26, 2011 21:30 -0800 S Moonesamy
<[e-mail]> wrote:

>> draft, with one small change, is being published as an
>> Informational RFC.
> 
> According to the document write-up:
> 
>    "The document had 2 reviews from the Apps Review team
>     and most of the comments were addressed, although reviewers
>     have disagreed with authors on some philosophical points.
>     The document was also discussed on the [e-mail]
>     mailing list."
> 
> Which points in the review (
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/msg0
> 2090.html ) were considered as philosophical points?
> 
>> So, what is the purpose of doing apps-area reviews, given
>> that this one produced no observable effects?
> 
> I'll leave it to the Application Area Directors to address
> that question.

Remember too that, as Mark has already pointed out in a
different way, the main point of a provisional registration is
to lower the odds that the same protocol identifier string will
be used to designate two different protocols. 

I am not advising this in any way and I personally don't think
it would be worth the effort, but, in the interest of procedural
knowledge and consistency, RFC 2026 does give anyone who feels
strongly about this decision the right to appeal it.

    john