Re: [apps-discuss] FW: New Version Notification for draft-thaler-uri-scheme-reg-ps-00.txt

["Martin J. Dürst" <[e-mail]>]

Hello Tony, others,

On 2013/10/11 1:39, Tony Hansen wrote:
> On 10/10/2013 12:16 PM, Dave Thaler wrote:
>> Ok, let me try to answer that.  RFC 4395 defines a set of goals which are
>> quoted in section 1.  The current mechanism does not meet those goals.
>> To really meet the stated goals would require the majority of schemes to
>> be registered.  The current process cannot scale to do so, given current
>> practice.  Hence we either need to change the process or change the goals
>> or both.
>
> Dave, please take a look at draft-ietf-iri-4395bis-irireg. This was an
> effort to update 4395 for many of the issues you raise as well as
> updating 4395 for IRIs. Work on it paused when the IRI WG imploded.

It should be pointed out that the IRI WG imploded not because of *I*RI 
issues (i.e. not because of internationalization issues) but because of 
strong differences between browser implementers (or those who claimed to 
represent them on the few occasions they showed up in the WG) and others 
more e.g. with an IETF apps background.

The main differences were:
- Whether to concentrate on how things ought to behave, with occasional 
detours into aberrations of implementations, or how some actual 
implementations behaved, warts and all
- Spec style: IETF style (ABNFs plus additional constraints) vs. 
pseudo-code style
- Whether to create a spec for protocol elements or a spec including 
browser APIs
- What to call the things (URIs/IRIs vs. URLs)
- Whether there was a need to distinguish 'resource' and 'representation'
- Whether to have every change go through a WG approval process or 
whether to have a strong editor who would listen to input when appropriate


> If you ignore the changes oriented around IRIs,

IRI issues are most probably orthogonal to the issues pointed out in 
Dave's draft, and in that sense, they can be ignored.

On the other hand, as far as I remember, most if not all of the changes 
oriented around IRIs are independent from the controversies (sketched 
above) that let to the dissolution of the IRI WG.


> does what is documented
> there solve the problems that you bring up? (I admit I have not taken
> your document and done a side-by-side check.)
>
> The editors of that draft have discussed resurrecting work on that draft
> without the IRI working group, but haven't received the kick in the
> pants needed to do so.

Yes, please resurrect the work on this draft!


Regards,   Martin.