Re: [apps-discuss] draft-ietf-iri-comparison

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Tue, 27 January 2015 23:01 UTC

Return-Path: <mnot@mnot.net>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDAEA1A90DF for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Jan 2015 15:01:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.602
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.602 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sGPxcI0mclEB for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Jan 2015 15:01:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mxout-07.mxes.net (mxout-07.mxes.net [216.86.168.182]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6DE361A90E5 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Jan 2015 15:01:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.83] (unknown [118.209.44.193]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 01A1522E260; Tue, 27 Jan 2015 18:01:22 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.1 \(1993\))
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <84E353AE-D96B-4211-99CB-D08AE17B1B1E@gbiv.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2015 10:01:19 +1100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <D186B223-DF46-4996-98A6-D258503F0068@mnot.net>
References: <54B18B61.8010308@seantek.com> <54B19435.8070401@intertwingly.net> <54B1B211.3050807@seantek.com> <54B1B682.3070609@intertwingly.net> <012001d02d91$6ec42300$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <54B2781C.4040505@intertwingly.net> <018e01d02dc6$1d03b0a0$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <54B2CC75.5080900@intertwingly.net> <54B79930.3070009@ninebynine.org> <54B7AEC2.9010109@intertwingly.net> <20150116033032.GD2350@localhost> <DM2PR0201MB096082B3915B85F60EDB617DC34F0@DM2PR0201MB0960.namprd02.prod.outlook.com> <015c01d0362f$1f6f6020$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <BN3PR0201MB0945D77BAC3FFB5396057D7AC3360@BN3PR0201MB0945.namprd02.prod.outlook.com> <54C65580.2080407@ninebynine.org> <E0FF89B4-6AD0-4F7C-AF41-C60DF30555E1@apple.com> <84E353AE-D96B-4211-99CB-D08AE17B1B1E@gbiv.com>
To: Roy Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1993)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/apps-discuss/oYjBbWJ2waP1yYLCCuAdvSe_8D8>
Cc: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>, "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] draft-ietf-iri-comparison
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 23:01:51 -0000

On 27 Jan 2015, at 1:05 pm, Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com> wrote:

> p.s.  Am I the only one that finds it incredibly annoying that the
>      APPS area uses this umbrella list for technical discussions about
>      topics for which we still have the original working group mailing
>      list active, archived, and populated with folks still capable of
>      answering these questions?  Ya know,
> 
>         "http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/uri/"
>         "http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-iri/"

Nope - you are far from alone. However, appsawg is an active WG, whereas URI/IRI are not, so perhaps that's why people tend to direct attention here.

I'd far prefer that appsawg were shut down and replaced by "mail" and "Web" WGs, the latter taking responsibility for URIs. They'd fight over format stuff, but that mirrors real life...

/me notes arc of grenade and makes hasty exit

--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/