Re: [apps-discuss] Retroactive application of draft-ietf-appsawg-uri-scheme-reg - comprehensive review

[Tony Hansen <[e-mail]>]

On 4/16/15 4:04 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:
>> Put differently, either those controversies are rooted in the
>> requirements of, and "details such as fragment vs syntax vs
>> semantics" based on, 3986, or they are about some combination of
>> 3986 and this document.  If the first, as you seem to believe
>> (and, btw, I agree), then the controversy does not affect this
>> document and it should go forward.   If the second, then this
>> document is inherently part of the controversy and it is
>> inappropriate for it to go forward at this time.
> Thanks for succintifying things.
>
> I think the answer is that this document does not update 3986, and
> does not intend to impose new requirements.  I think the controversies
> are purely about 3986, and not about what this document is doing.
>
> I will wait for confirmation of that from a document author or two...
> or refutation of it from anyone who thinks I'm wrong about where this
> document sits.

Just now, I've re-reviewed all references to 3986 within 
draft-ietf-appsawg-uri-scheme-reg-06 and don't see anywhere that it 
should be construed as >updating< 3986. There are lots of places where 
people are directed to looking at 3986 and 3987, and a thorough 
understanding of those is needed to fully appreciate some of the things 
being said in here. But if there's ANY doubt about us NOT updating them, 
is there a need to explicitly state that, say in the introduction?

     Tony Hansen