IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [apps-discuss] OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-appsawg-uri-get-off-my-lawn-04

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Mon, 12 May 2014 02:09 UTC

Return-Path: <mnot@mnot.net>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D6FF1A03BE for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 11 May 2014 19:09:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.602
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.602 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lraXJPZlumWq for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 11 May 2014 19:09:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxout-07.mxes.net (mxout-07.mxes.net [216.86.168.182]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 093C81A03BD for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Sun, 11 May 2014 19:09:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.57] (unknown [118.209.60.138]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 508E522E1F3; Sun, 11 May 2014 22:09:22 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.2 \(1874\))
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <8D3D17ACE214DC429325B2B98F3AE712076C438BD2@MX15A.corp.emc.com>
Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 12:09:21 +1000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <F61CE493-373D-4BCC-8837-0D2E93296B6E@mnot.net>
References: <8D3D17ACE214DC429325B2B98F3AE712076BECFE9B@MX15A.corp.emc.com> <B1CAC1BB-F3AA-4151-B646-6146EF2B81BD@mnot.net> <8D3D17ACE214DC429325B2B98F3AE712076C438BD2@MX15A.corp.emc.com>
To: "Black, David" <david.black@emc.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1874)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/apps-discuss/wEpVTq9UVR1fEMzKSHrbxHvhv3w
Cc: "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-appsawg-uri-get-off-my-lawn-04
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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, 12 May 2014 02:09:38 -0000

On 8 May 2014, at 1:55 pm, Black, David <david.black@emc.com> wrote:

> OLD
>   A specification that defines substructure within a URI scheme MUST do
>   so in the defining document for that URI scheme, or by modifying
>   [RFC4395].
> NEW
>   A specification that defines substructure within a URI scheme MUST do
>   so in the defining document for that URI scheme, or by modifying
>   [RFC4395].  The latter approach is not preferred and should only be
>   used in exceptional circumstances.

I’m not against this. What do other people think?



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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email