Re: [apps-discuss] FW: New Version Notification for draft-thaler-uri-scheme-reg-ps-00.txt

Hello Dave,

On 2013/10/12 2:49, Dave Thaler wrote:
> Yes, I know, I've reviewed that document many times.   I considered referencing it in my draft
> but ended up deleting references to it because it didn't really change the problem statement.
> I could add the reference back in in a -01 if it would help.

It would help indeed, in the sense that it would show that you had a 
look at it (which I  guessed, but others may not have known) and also to 
say, in your draft, how it relates to what's in 
draft-ietf-iri-4395bis-irireg.

Regards,   Martin.

> So in short: no the latest version does not address the issues or I would have just been arguing
> for publishing it as is.  However, that is the doc that I would expect the solution to the problems
> to be done in, but as I'm not currently a co-author (about the time IRI WG was closed, I did
> volunteer to help edit the document as I do think it's important) and because I want to focus
> discussion on the problem without presuming a particular solution, I wrote a separate draft
> for now that I would expect to go away once we decide on an appropriate direction.
>
> -Dave
>
> From: Tony Hansen [mailto:tony@att.com]
> Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 9:39 AM
> To: Dave Thaler
> Cc: apps-discuss@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] FW: New Version Notification for draft-thaler-uri-scheme-reg-ps-00.txt
>
> On 10/10/2013 12:16 PM, Dave Thaler wrote:
>
> Ok, let me try to answer that.  RFC 4395 defines a set of goals which are
>
> quoted in section 1.  The current mechanism does not meet those goals.
>
> To really meet the stated goals would require the majority of schemes to
>
> be registered.  The current process cannot scale to do so, given current
>
> practice.  Hence we either need to change the process or change the goals
>
> or both.
>
> Dave, please take a look at draft-ietf-iri-4395bis-irireg. This was an effort to update 4395 for many of the issues you raise as well as updating 4395 for IRIs. Work on it paused when the IRI WG imploded.
>
> If you ignore the changes oriented around IRIs, does what is documented there solve the problems that you bring up? (I admit I have not taken your document and done a side-by-side check.)
>
> The editors of that draft have discussed resurrecting work on that draft without the IRI working group, but haven't received the kick in the pants needed to do so.
>
>      Tony Hansen
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> apps-discuss mailing list
> apps-discuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss