Re: [art] BCP190

[Larry Masinter <[e-mail]>]

> I'll repeat what I've said to the TRANS chairs on this topic: if we can
get an
> agreement in principle on the ART mailing list that BCP 190 is too strict
and
> needs to be updated to allow the kinds of exceptions envisioned by TRANS,

I'm not sure it's BCP 190 that is too strict, but the IESG's DISCUSSes are
too strict in their interpretation of it and the wisdom of treating
non-conformity with a BCP as somehow being disallowed in an
Experimental status specification.

If you read BCP 190, it doesn't consistently state requirements
for conformance with it. The abstract provides what I thought
were sufficient context:

   While it is common for schemes to further delegate their
   substructure to the URI's owner, publishing independent standards
   that mandate particular forms of URI substructure is inappropriate,
   because that essentially usurps ownership.  This document further
   describes this problematic practice and provides some acceptable
   alternatives for use in standards.

This seems to focus  the intended scope to "publishing independent
standards" 
and that the consequence of non-conformance would be something that
might be "problematic" if not completely "inappropriate" because
it "essentially usurps ownership" where "ownerships is defined with a
 (normative) reference to
https://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-webarch-20041215/#uri-ownership