Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] URI registry (was: Re: The state of 'afs' URi scheme)
From: "Martin J. Dürst" <[email-masked]>
To: "t.petch" <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 14:57:28 +0900
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>

[Responding one more time here because this is a metadiscussion; please 
move the discussion to [email-masked] (the mailing list of the IETF 
IRI WG). Please also see 
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/iri/trac/ticket/54 and 
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/iri/trac/ticket/55 for the two issues this 
has resulted in]

On 2011/02/10 6:38, t.petch wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Martin J. Dürst"<[email-masked]>
> To: "t.petch"<[email-masked]>
> Cc: "Larry Masinter"<[email-masked]>; "Ben Niven-Jenkins"
> <[email-masked]>;<[email-masked]>;<[email-masked]>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2011 4:32 AM
>
>> I'm cc'ing the IRI WG list. One of the deliverables of the IRI WG is an
>> update of RFC 4395. You can see the current version at
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-iri-4395bis-irireg-00.
>>
>> Given that there is a WG chartered to work on these issues, I suggest to
>> move the discussion there.
>
> Martin
>
> Well, the IRI charter says produce a new version of RFC4395, but looking
> at the details in the charter, I see no reference to RFC4395.

Yes, the charter contains no details about RFC4395, just that the WG 
will produce an update.

> Looking at rfc4395bis, the changes I see are 'URI includes IRI'
> which is good to have, but not really on the same scale as "let's
> change the IANA categories".

I don't think anybody has proposed a change in the categories itself. 
Some people just seem to have different ideas about what exactly the 
categories mean, so it's probably a good idea to clarify that. 
Clarifications of current text is about the lowest level of actual 
change I can imagine, and so I don't think there should be any problem 
with that. But of course I'm just a participant in that WG (and one of 
the editors of the other document of the WG), so it's ultimately not for 
me to decide.

As for the move of specific 'orphaned' schemes from one category to the 
other, I also see that as a very small scale issue.

> I would expect the WG chairs
> and AD to declare such activity ultra vires (but I might get
> a pleasant surprise:-).

I'd definitely like to hear from the WG chairs or the AD(s), but maybe 
first we have to have some discussion in the WG to see where we are 
headed, and to what extent we might potentially jump out of our charter 
fence.

Regards,   Martin.

-- 
#-# Martin J. Dürst, Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-# http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp   mailto:[email-masked]