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

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Thu, 27 January 2011 01:12 UTC

Return-Path: <mnot@mnot.net>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A1063A68F8 for <apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Jan 2011 17:12:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -104.552
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.552 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.953, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id q84I0mkr-yh4 for <apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Jan 2011 17:12:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mxout-08.mxes.net (mxout-08.mxes.net [216.86.168.183]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A2D53A68F6 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Jan 2011 17:12:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from chancetrain-lm.mnot.net (unknown [118.209.1.128]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AAC01509D9; Wed, 26 Jan 2011 20:15:42 -0500 (EST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikaHw7GKiAn1B4Uu5sytyzmi97ExejzfDT82UzO@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2011 12:15:34 +1100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <4A236DC2-091E-4072-A74F-55744ED10494@mnot.net>
References: <AANLkTikaHw7GKiAn1B4Uu5sytyzmi97ExejzfDT82UzO@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082)
Cc: apps-discuss@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Feeling kind of confused about draft-merrick-jms-uri-12
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Thu, 27 Jan 2011 01:12:48 -0000

It's a provisional registration, and the bar for that is pretty low:
  http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4395#section-3

Cheers,


On 27/01/2011, at 12:01 PM, 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
> RFC.
> 
> So, what is the purpose of doing apps-area reviews, given that this
> one produced no observable effects?
> 
> -Tim
> _______________________________________________
> apps-discuss mailing list
> apps-discuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss

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