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

Dave Crocker <dhc2@dcrocker.net> Wed, 13 April 2016 14:13 UTC

Return-Path: <dhc2@dcrocker.net>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEDC612DEE9; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 07:13:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PxdwNkAbZmQl; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 07:13:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2799312DE72; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 07:13:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] (76-218-8-128.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net []) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u3DED8kc015365 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Wed, 13 Apr 2016 07:13:08 -0700
To: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
References: <570D4C99.1030405@dcrocker.net> <CACweHND-OX+5okkJ+oE=6UN84x+CFtPBpMnU8HqaPbgQgJ_oWA@mail.gmail.com> <570E225B.4090504@ninebynine.org>
From: Dave Crocker <dhc2@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
Message-ID: <570E53EB.60108@dcrocker.net>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 07:12:59 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.7.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <570E225B.4090504@ninebynine.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com []); Wed, 13 Apr 2016 07:13:08 -0700 (PDT)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/apps-discuss/kgrYkoTvKubHMAibHmw3kNuDedU>
Cc: Apps Discuss <apps-discuss@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-appsawg-file-scheme@ietf.org
Subject: [apps-discuss] Experimental (was - Re: Review of draft-ietf-appsawg-file-scheme)
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 13 Apr 2016 14:13:10 -0000

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.


   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking