Re: [apps-discuss] open issues with acct-uri spec

["Martin J. Dürst" <[e-mail]>]

Hello Larry,

On 2012/11/19 17:53, Larry Masinter wrote:
>
> Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr) wrote Tuesday, November 06, 2012 5:10 AM
>> If there's a port, you have to specify a protocol, in which case acct:
>> doesn't make sense to me.
>
> I see quite a bit of discussion about URI scheme guidelines.

> However, I think the update of RFC 4395 was taken up by the IRI working group which had little attention on it.
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-iri-4395bis-irireg-04 expired.  Actually, quite a bit got re-written, but I don't remember any review comments.
> http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=rfc4395&url2=draft-ietf-iri-4395bis-irireg-04.txt
>
> Now, if apps-discuss is willing to put so much energy into a single URI scheme definition, perhaps some energy could be put into updating the guidelines.
>
> Maybe someone who hasn't been working on this topic for 20 years could find more energy to work on an update?

Is the XML at
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-iri-4395bis-irireg-04.xml
up to date, or is there a more up-to-date internal version?
If not, can one of the authors who is in possession of the newest 
version commit it to the IRI WG svg repo or some other suitable location 
and announce where it's avaliable?

I have added a new issues for this in the IRI WG tracker.

Regards,    Martin.

P.S.: All this just to make sure things don't get dropped.