Re: [apps-discuss] Call for Adoption: draft-kerwin-file-scheme

[t.petch <[e-mail]>]

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, I remain an enthusiastic supporter of the
adoption of this I-D by APPSAWG.

Any URI scheme requires skills in the general issues of URIs (characters
used, percent encoding, etc) and in the issues of resolution for the
specific scheme and while there are other places where URIs surface in
the IETF, I think that this is the only place where both skills are
present.

I see the objective, were it to be codified as such, as updating the
file: scheme from the level of RFC1738 to the level of RFC3986 and not
attempting to go beyond that.

Tom Petch


----- Original Message -----
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[e-mail]>
To: "Matthew Kerwin" <[e-mail]>
Cc: "IETF Apps Discuss" <[e-mail]>; "Larry Masinter"
<[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, January 01, 2015 6:37 AM
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Call for Adoption: draft-kerwin-file-scheme


> On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 8:51 PM, Matthew Kerwin
<[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
> > On 21 December 2014 at 05:55, Larry Masinter <[e-mail]>
wrote:
> >
> >> > This opens a call for adoption for draft-kerwin-file-scheme, to
be
> >> processed by APPSAWG.
> >>
> >> I don't think apps area should take up kerwin-file-scheme as an
> >> independent work item, not because the work isn't important but
because
> >> apps-discuss is too congested to manage the discussion (no
responses to my
> >> Dec 9 comments
> >>
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/msg13462.html
> >> ). In general, APPSAWG shouldn't take up URL-scheme permanent
> >> registrations? Or should it? This should be addressed in the scheme
> >> registration BCP.
> >>
> >>
> > Sorry for not responding sooner, I've been a bit overwhelmed with
real
> > life, and there's quite a back-log of comments and messages to
aggregate
> > and process.
> >
> > Regarding adoption of URL schemes by this WG, what alternatives
would you
> > propose? I could instead try to make it an individual submission,
but this
> > particular scheme has a lot of political and emotional history, and
there
> > seems to be more and more work involved with developing the spec, so
I'd
> > rather have much more buy-in through the whole process (such as you
get
> > from a working group). I don't think it's big enough to warrant
spinning up
> > its own WG, and I'm not aware of any others that would be more
appropriate
> > than here.
> >
>
> The BCP for registering schemes appears not to require an RFC, only
Expert
> Review.
>
> The guideline I've had in mind both for schemes and media types is
this: If
> there's a lot of development work to be done on the format of what's
to be
> registered, or if Standards Track status seems to be worthwhile or
even
> necessary, then a working group (this one or a new one) makes sense.
On
> the other hand, if it's mostly just documenting and then registering
> something already quite well understood, I think the independent
stream is
> worth considering.  Even better: If the required documentation could
simply
> be included in the registration template, then just do that, and then
> there's no need to produce an RFC through any stream.
>
> An individual submission requires AD sponsorship, and I don't think
this
> has been shopped to any ADs yet (has it?).
>
> All that said, one of the earlier threads about this work certainly
made me
> think there's a non-trivial number of issues that need attention
before
> this one could be done right, so working group attention (this or a
new
> one) is warranted.  If we want to spin off a WG for it, that's for
Barry to
> consider (anyone feel like writing a charter?).
>
> All THAT said, Larry's earlier message (URI cited above) does still
need a
> reply, I believe.  If this draft does get adopted, that will be
necessary
> before we can progress the document.
>
> -MSK
>


------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------


> _______________________________________________
> apps-discuss mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
>