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

[Dave Thaler <[e-mail]>]

Yes, I know, I've reviewed that document many times.   I considered referencing it in my draft
but ended up deleting references to it because it didn't really change the problem statement.
I could add the reference back in in a -01 if it would help.

So in short: no the latest version does not address the issues or I would have just been arguing
for publishing it as is.  However, that is the doc that I would expect the solution to the problems
to be done in, but as I'm not currently a co-author (about the time IRI WG was closed, I did
volunteer to help edit the document as I do think it's important) and because I want to focus
discussion on the problem without presuming a particular solution, I wrote a separate draft
for now that I would expect to go away once we decide on an appropriate direction.

-Dave

From: Tony Hansen [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 9:39 AM
To: Dave Thaler
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] FW: New Version Notification for draft-thaler-uri-scheme-reg-ps-00.txt

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.

If you ignore the changes oriented around IRIs, 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.

    Tony Hansen