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

The draft states:

"""
This document defines a syntax that is compatible with most extant implementations, while attempting to push towards a stricter subset of "ideal" constructs.  In many cases it simultaneously acknowledges and deprecates some less common or outdated constructs.
"""

I'm concerned about how well this draft aligns with current and future behaviour of common clients (especially, but not exclusively, Web browsers), especially since it's making decisions about deprecation and subsetting.

Have we had any input or statements of support from those communities?

Is there a test suite or other data to validate the decisions made?

Absent those things, I question whether it should be published at all. Experimental doesn't seem like the correct path, because the experiment would effectively be to "see if this sticks." It's one thing to define a new protocol extension with the hope that it will get traction in time; it's another to do hope-based definition of existing protocol constructs.

Regards,

> On 14 Apr 2016, at 6:08 AM, John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
> 
>> 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.
> 
> I coulda sworn that's what Proposed Standard means.
> 
> R's,
> John
> 
> PS: More concretely, what's the timeline for the experiment and how
> will we tell what the results are?
> 
> _______________________________________________
> apps-discuss mailing list
> apps-discuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss

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