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

[Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>]

>> Just now, I've re-reviewed all references to 3986 within
>> draft-ietf-appsawg-uri-scheme-reg-06 and don't see anywhere
>> that it should be construed as >updating< 3986. There are lots
>> of places where people are directed to looking at 3986 and
>> 3987, and a thorough understanding of those is needed to fully
>> appreciate some of the things being said in here. But if
>> there's ANY doubt about us NOT updating them, is there a need
>> to explicitly state that, say in the introduction?
>
> In the spirit of moving on, I'd prefer to avoid requiring
> another rev and will happily settle for the assurance that
> everyone involved will provide support for my pushing back if
> anyone stands up and says "you can't do <X> in URNs because
> draft-ietf-appsawg-urn-scheme-reg clarified 3986 to prohibit it".

Thanks, John!  I'm off to ask the Secretariat to make the approval announcement.

Barry