Re: [apps-discuss] Retroactive application of draft-ietf-appsawg-uri-scheme-reg - comprehensive review

[Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>]

> To repeat what I have tried to say before, I think there is one
> important distinction to be made here.  To state it as narrowly
> as I can, either this document imposes requirements on existing
> schemes and revisions of them that 3986 does not or it doesn't.
> If it does impose new requirements, then, according to
> long-established IESG requirements, it must indicate that it
> updates 3986 and explain the nature of the update/change(s).  In
> addition and depending on what that text says, it is likely to
> be inevitably bound to the controversies.   If it does not
> impose new requirements, then I'm comfortable letting this
> document go forward based on your assurances (and, implicitly,
> that of the IESG) that future arguments that cite this document
> in discussions of the controversies to which you refer will be
> disregarded a without substance.
>
> Put differently, either those controversies are rooted in the
> requirements of, and "details such as fragment vs syntax vs
> semantics" based on, 3986, or they are about some combination of
> 3986 and this document.  If the first, as you seem to believe
> (and, btw, I agree), then the controversy does not affect this
> document and it should go forward.   If the second, then this
> document is inherently part of the controversy and it is
> inappropriate for it to go forward at this time.

Thanks for succintifying things.

I think the answer is that this document does not update 3986, and
does not intend to impose new requirements.  I think the controversies
are purely about 3986, and not about what this document is doing.

I will wait for confirmation of that from a document author or two...
or refutation of it from anyone who thinks I'm wrong about where this
document sits.

Barry