IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [apps-discuss] Use of RFC 2119, Re: WGLC: draft-ietf-appsawg-about-uri-scheme-03.txt

Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com> Wed, 28 March 2012 08:42 UTC

Return-Path: <masinter@adobe.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D848121F8779 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 01:42:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.628
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.628 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.029, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eJYAvmUiLtmC for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 01:42:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod6og108.obsmtp.com (exprod6og108.obsmtp.com [64.18.1.21]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B835921F876A for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 01:42:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from outbound-smtp-2.corp.adobe.com ([193.104.215.16]) by exprod6ob108.postini.com ([64.18.5.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKT3LO7zCiZRggTILKEO6FXa6J1kvLORC8@postini.com; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 01:42:27 PDT
Received: from inner-relay-1.corp.adobe.com (inner-relay-1.corp.adobe.com [153.32.1.51]) by outbound-smtp-2.corp.adobe.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id q2S8gMvq020124; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 01:42:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nahub02.corp.adobe.com (nahub02.corp.adobe.com [10.8.189.98]) by inner-relay-1.corp.adobe.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id q2S8gLMM007928; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 01:42:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nambxv01a.corp.adobe.com ([10.8.189.95]) by nahub02.corp.adobe.com ([10.8.189.98]) with mapi; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 01:42:21 -0700
From: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
To: "julian.reschke@gmx.de" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 01:42:19 -0700
Thread-Topic: [apps-discuss] Use of RFC 2119, Re: WGLC: draft-ietf-appsawg-about-uri-scheme-03.txt
Thread-Index: Ac0HLiDU8Ev7DMOBSIK0OILPgCaxTQFj8uRA
Message-ID: <C68CB012D9182D408CED7B884F441D4D06A902E82B@nambxv01a.corp.adobe.com>
References: <503575970.11554@cnnic.cn> <4A10020DB6464A0BBA535BF75D21A9D9@LENOVO47E041CF> <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E003928094CEB@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <CAC4RtVB9vbCoHN5wwgRkVc6Yhkp7ERQKgpMeHp93HGMqYpiAQQ@mail.gmail.com> <4F6978D8.10605@gmx.de>
In-Reply-To: <4F6978D8.10605@gmx.de>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Use of RFC 2119, Re: WGLC: draft-ietf-appsawg-about-uri-scheme-03.txt
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 08:42:29 -0000

rfc4395 and http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-iri-4395bis-irireg-04 both use 2119 keywords in the same way:

   Within this document, the key words MUST, MAY, SHOULD, REQUIRED,
   RECOMMENDED, and so forth are used within the general meanings
   established in [RFC2119], within the context that they are
   requirements on future registration specifications.

i.e., just in the sense that "about:" is establishing a second-level registration.

Is a FCFS policy by itself consistent with having MUST and SHOULD requirements on the registration? 


>> [Relatively] Minor Issues:
>> I'm not so sure about use of RFC2119 language in the IANA Considerations
>> section.  You're not really describing interoperability requirements with IANA.
>
> I'm sure.  And it's my text -- this is one that Mykyta doesn't like.
> The three MUSTs in there are not directed at IANA, but at people
> writing new registrations.  They tell those people what their
> registrations have to look like, and I wanted to use MUST to stress
> that even though this is an FCFS policy, there are requirements
> nonetheless.
> ...

I'm with Murray here. This is something RFC 2119 keywords are not for.

Best regards, Julian
_______________________________________________
apps-discuss mailing list
apps-discuss@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email