[apps-discuss] draft-ietf-appsawg-about-uri-scheme

"Mykyta Yevstifeyev (М. Євстіфеєв)" <evnikita2@gmail.com> Mon, 14 November 2011 19:11 UTC

Return-Path: <evnikita2@gmail.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 BA74911E8356 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 11:11:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.334
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.334 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.035, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 d0+fTw18531z for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 11:11:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-bw0-f44.google.com (mail-bw0-f44.google.com [209.85.214.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5F7121F8DC8 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 11:11:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: by bkbzv15 with SMTP id zv15so119910bkb.31 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 11:11:32 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=CE3PvmwGFDFTi4L+bpYvX8oF6H3Mr1ApiVDlVMgF9DI=; b=QxHDhqNXao/lOwqSpF0Gd3v/uuDIwJEU4DTjLlG8+x53r86WEVuM2b6Leqrprxd3Ct GLazVAF7SVDFOPHtvFDpsy3hSw5nPbYlUrPEQa6jzyqa1qgWKSKYUY9lEpUBAihDczrn FqhCAmgGXyCtnvMEOdBzPZDE48ZkA5pkNUZLo=
Received: by 10.204.154.137 with SMTP id o9mr20565812bkw.80.1321297892669; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 11:11:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([195.191.104.224]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id a4sm24228147bkq.13.2011.11.14.11.11.30 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 14 Nov 2011 11:11:31 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <4EC16815.80501@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 21:12:21 +0200
From: =?UTF-8?B?Ik15a3l0YSBZZXZzdGlmZXlldiAo0JwuINCE0LLRgdGC0ZbRhNC10ZTQsg==?= =?UTF-8?B?KSI=?= <evnikita2@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Apps-discuss list <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [apps-discuss] draft-ietf-appsawg-about-uri-scheme
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: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 19:11:36 -0000

Hello,

 From minutes:

> 09:05 draft-ietf-appsawg-about-uri-scheme (chairs)
>
> Room consensus for registry to be FCFS with minimal doc via template.

That is what the WG reached at the previous meeting and what is not 
there currently is in the doc.  Before it became a WG item, the authors, 
ADs and me did have a discussion on this point, but there was no 
agreement - that's why it became WG item.  What I actually think is that 
FCFS should be appropriate, but there is no point of adding a registry 
entry given no specification available whereas the MUST restriction is 
imposed.  Recently Barry has sent me the following proposal: to have the 
policy FCFS but make specification reference mandatory for 
registration.  Therefore, if there is nobody who objects, I may change 
the following text in IANA Considerations:

OLD:

>     The registration policy for new entries is "Specification Required",
>     as defined in RFC 5226 [RFC5226].  Additionally, the following
>     template MUST be provided by the registrant:

NEW:

>     The registration policy for new entries is "First Come First Served",
>     as defined in RFC 5226 [RFC5226].  Additionally, the following
>     template MUST be provided by the registrant:

OLD:

>     o Published specifications:  A reference to the published
>       specification for the registered token.

NEW:

>     o Published specifications:  A reference to the stable specification
>       MUST be provided.  The specification SHALL cover what the SPU
>       with the token being registered ought to resolve to, and SHOULD
>       cover other issues related to SPU usage.

Any comments are welcome.

Mykyta Yevstifeyev