Re: [apps-discuss] Apps Area review of draft-allen-dispatch-imei-urn-as-instanceid-10
Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> Wed, 14 August 2013 20:08 UTC
Return-Path: <stpeter@stpeter.im>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21A2721E808C; Wed, 14 Aug 2013 13:08:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.164
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.164 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.435, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jifqt7tPfJZR; Wed, 14 Aug 2013 13:08:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 447D521E80D6; Wed, 14 Aug 2013 13:08:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ergon.local (unknown [64.101.72.39]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9855EE8346; Wed, 14 Aug 2013 14:11:43 -0600 (MDT)
Message-ID: <520BE3CA.9000503@stpeter.im>
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 14:08:42 -0600
From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130620 Thunderbird/17.0.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
References: <CAHBU6itRv7_A8CaCn-BCKwF3B2ZE43=7LM9H77Txa=zgVSX0uw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHBU6itRv7_A8CaCn-BCKwF3B2ZE43=7LM9H77Txa=zgVSX0uw@mail.gmail.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: draft-allen-dispatch-imei-urn-as-instanceid.all@tools.ietf.org, "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Apps Area review of draft-allen-dispatch-imei-urn-as-instanceid-10
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 20:08:52 -0000
On 8/13/13 7:32 PM, Tim Bray wrote: > “The UAC MUST provide lexically equivalent URNs in each registration” - > the term “lexically equivalent” is probably underspecified; see Section > 6 of RFC3986. If you mean “character-by-character identical” you should > probably say so (and I suspect you do). Well, to be fair, RFC 2141 and RFC 3406, which predate RFC 3986, use the term "lexically equivalent", so I can understand the confusion. However, draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bis-urn-06 (submitted 12 days ago) removes the term "lexically" to align the URNBIS work with RFC 3986, and the next version of draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3406bis-urn-ns-reg will do the same. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
- [apps-discuss] Apps Area review of draft-allen-di… Tim Bray
- Re: [apps-discuss] Apps Area review of draft-alle… Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [apps-discuss] Apps Area review of draft-alle… Andrew Allen