[apps-discuss] Experimental (was - Re: Review of draft-ietf-appsawg-file-scheme)

[Dave Crocker <[e-mail]>]

On 4/13/2016 3:41 AM, Graham Klyne wrote:
> On 13/04/2016 09:28, Matthew Kerwin wrote:
>> But to reiterate, it's already implemented pretty widely so I don't think
>> it can count as an "experimental scheme" -- rather, this would be an
>> experiment in restandardising a diverged and stagnant scheme.
>
> +1
>
> file:// URIs are *very* widely used - I don't think it makes sense to
> call them "experimental".  I think it should be standards-track, but if
> the community can't agree then I'd suggest "informational" with
> permanent registration.


I need to clarify the basis for suggesting Experimental status.  (And I 
had to explain this a few times before posting the review, so it's no 
surprise I need to do it on-list.)

The motivation is not concern whether 'file:' is deployed and used.  Of 
course it is and very widely and very heavily.

The concern is with the specification itself.  If it is seeking to 
document existing practice, the question is whether it does that well 
and usefully.

So the idea behind Experimental -- and I see this as especially strong 
/because/ there already is very wide use of the file: construct -- is to 
publish the draft and see whether the community adopts use of it, to 
cover that existing practise.


d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net