Re: [apps-discuss] Call for Adoption: draft-kerwin-file-scheme

Scott Kitterman <scott@kitterman.com> Thu, 18 December 2014 14:06 UTC

Return-Path: <scott@kitterman.com>
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 5D5271A89F5 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Dec 2014 06:06:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.103
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.103 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, 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 GU08TzwJbgjK for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Dec 2014 06:06:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailout03.controlledmail.com (mailout03.controlledmail.com [208.43.65.50]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 357ED1A89BB for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Dec 2014 06:06:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from scott-latitude-e6320.localnet (static-72-81-252-21.bltmmd.fios.verizon.net [72.81.252.21]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailout03.controlledmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 99CA3C40076; Thu, 18 Dec 2014 08:08:20 -0600 (CST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=kitterman.com; s=201409; t=1418911700; bh=6+cwGIO5XPpS7ePyrvDIE0wRr/e61rT/g94ZU43Oc6g=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=vZlr6dAYM69o1YZebZ0CX1P5pZO+IqEo811lRVdD7zFD9hR/H+cXFSxaFyg9u/jXV vO/Z+YlLdyq/vH/Vu7B2YjkPvhVXvLU4/V2068sJ1uair9/Eyse0KiD8hCyeI010lR uBHl+7BX66Z112Q3Cxdi51AxswA23lBwWhUVY8H8=
From: Scott Kitterman <scott@kitterman.com>
To: apps-discuss@ietf.org
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2014 09:06:27 -0500
Message-ID: <6696385.C9EWBcZ1Pq@scott-latitude-e6320>
User-Agent: KMail/4.13.3 (Linux/3.13.0-43-generic; KDE/4.13.3; x86_64; ; )
In-Reply-To: <CAL0qLwYrAGk-gpfMKigy8C8CCzdA4NhQv60UdUmBtXdkQF10SA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAL0qLwYrAGk-gpfMKigy8C8CCzdA4NhQv60UdUmBtXdkQF10SA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/apps-discuss/xwSdLIQgJSjw_v9fZHCVjieENM4
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Call for Adoption: draft-kerwin-file-scheme
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: Thu, 18 Dec 2014 14:06:32 -0000

On Wednesday, December 17, 2014 08:37:34 Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> This opens a call for adoption for draft-kerwin-file-scheme, to be
> processed by APPSAWG.  There appears to be enough interest in the work
> given the feedback it's getting, and it appears to fit within our charter.
> 
> Please indicate your support or objection by replying to this thread.  The
> call will close on January 9, 2015.
> 
> -MSK, APPSAWG co-chair

In its current form, the draft has normative references to two non-IETF 
documents that don't have clear licensing terms, specifically MS-DTYP and MS-
NBTE.  As nearly as I can determine, these are not covered by the Microsoft 
Open Specification Promise [1].  Given that these are normative references, I 
think it's essential that their IPR status be clear.  I don't think it's 
appropriate on something as fundamental as the file URI scheme to end up with a 
document that's IPR constrained.

Before this document is accepted, it should either be reworked to no require 
these as normative references or the IPR status of the references should be 
clarified to make it clear that their use is not encumbered (adding them to the 
OSP would be a great way to do this).

Scott K

[1] http://www.microsoft.com/openspecifications/en/us/programs/osp/default.aspx