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

["Murray S. Kucherawy" <[e-mail]>]

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