Re: [apps-discuss] Feeling kind of confused about draft-merrick-jms-uri-12

S Moonesamy <> Thu, 27 January 2011 05:52 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 862DC3A6921 for <>; Wed, 26 Jan 2011 21:52:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.499
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.100, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Oq5y7+6YM3an for <>; Wed, 26 Jan 2011 21:52:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7CCA3A6923 for <>; Wed, 26 Jan 2011 21:52:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([]) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p0R5tVpW018989; Wed, 26 Jan 2011 21:55:36 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/simple;; s=mail; t=1296107738; bh=MRSa53yzL9jVfcGGr+YMo1uITJY=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=3M8NNWgv1IcsU2QxuztbS1W1m+zycJhDqrWjl2hyzTBmuXC6WqHlDQ7DOpHjvgAW9 G2qOqy6d0j79lVRax4MQC6QDAwj+yzlCyileVBZnqzKEDTwoTuKL/2ZbyHlDeklp40 7+PL4dX8Hh1vM0GsOJ3EipYDoMG2NNaps9eowiMQ=
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 21:30:56 -0800
To: Tim Bray <>
From: S Moonesamy <>
In-Reply-To: < om>
References: <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Feeling kind of confused about draft-merrick-jms-uri-12
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2011 05:52:38 -0000

Hi Tim,
At 17:01 26-01-11, Tim Bray wrote:
>I was asked to review it.  My review was quite negative, challenging
>the notion that a URI was even appropriate for this space, and
>pointing out some fairly serious problems with the text.  I'd have
>expected at least another draft.  Today, the IESG announces that that
>draft, with one small change, is being published as an Informational

According to the document write-up:

   "The document had 2 reviews from the Apps Review team
    and most of the comments were addressed, although reviewers
    have disagreed with authors on some philosophical points.
    The document was also discussed on the
    mailing list."

Which points in the review ( 
) were considered as philosophical points?

>So, what is the purpose of doing apps-area reviews, given that this
>one produced no observable effects?

I'll leave it to the Application Area Directors to address that question.

S. Moonesamy