IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Thu, 01 January 2015 17:20 UTC

Return-Path: <superuser@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 846331A0164 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Jan 2015 09:20:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VxAvTMjEydKJ for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Jan 2015 09:20:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wg0-x22d.google.com (mail-wg0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::22d]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F244F1A010A for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 1 Jan 2015 09:20:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wg0-f45.google.com with SMTP id b13so23243452wgh.4 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 01 Jan 2015 09:20:34 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=gw9dklUAQ21YPrGe7DEcTxBppaU4dF0TYF9Vr8WMmJc=; b=a9cr9UqBnoSWTtwRvVSkY4mBQ3rmiU9eqzpJqwriOIZpIAlYoh1/ftaS4Cz4KQcJNs 4Zsn0u27iSJ/Ri3zDaI+TNE7vcoQ05hQ+WA48OhZYzbecYClo0k5LOB/a1kAnHYQEcKK inCqJ9I6HPtTgHjLIdI7A4RYmk4pzUm60IQ64HQhuRPNnA0vocVW3NctzisgG06ss2tg rGcwQVJF8qCmyio4XK8DJKohvd/qb7RzjqxRE2eEdEyFmAqmY3VWxkmiyuonFxPRkxkb q/UgTt24SNKMcJUoVnqZ623BFmvDa61FjeXy6SD/ajsDFZHtgs92Qvzkrtm/BSaJg+AL r1MA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.91.36 with SMTP id cb4mr123544950wib.30.1420132834744; Thu, 01 Jan 2015 09:20:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.27.204.198 with HTTP; Thu, 1 Jan 2015 09:20:34 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <54A5763C.5060203@ninebynine.org>
References: <CAL0qLwYrAGk-gpfMKigy8C8CCzdA4NhQv60UdUmBtXdkQF10SA@mail.gmail.com> <DM2PR0201MB09604DBCC319F62A89FBA3B5C3680@DM2PR0201MB0960.namprd02.prod.outlook.com> <CACweHNAdSoGPSW9ZzCgGyma9JuwJyLGkMmEHoy-G43dQsOp4GA@mail.gmail.com> <CAL0qLwaZA4rhqJv+HL6dpfyneDjSJqVzZiVyOb7ESDvocPHBMw@mail.gmail.com> <54A5763C.5060203@ninebynine.org>
Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2015 09:20:34 -0800
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwabVM4WmgGmZ0czQhA_m=PmFdzY3tSzMjwtsSr0UG90rw@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
To: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f46d043d6711261ed1050b9a7184"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/apps-discuss/XU8NvEDQcuHEOAdL5V4FevWznuc
Cc: IETF Apps Discuss <apps-discuss@ietf.org>, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Call for Adoption: draft-kerwin-file-scheme
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2015 17:20:37 -0000

On Thu, Jan 1, 2015 at 8:30 AM, Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org> wrote:

> In the case of file:, I have no doubt that the scheme is both widely
> supported and widely used.  The problems with the current specification
> have been widely discussed, over a long period.  But I would have
> reservations about permanent registration if there is no clear community
> consensus about how the scheme may be used or is expected to function.
>

Thanks for chiming in, Graham.

Can I take this to mean that as wide adoption increases, your expectation
of community discussion and possibly even RFC publication also increase?
Such guidance would be useful in deciding which way to guide these thing in
the future, especially since there's been such a surge in them lately.

-MSK

v2.34.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status