Re: [art] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-appsawg-file-scheme-15: (with DISCUSS)

Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> Tue, 13 December 2016 17:45 UTC

Return-Path: <dhc@dcrocker.net>
X-Original-To: art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CED0129407; Tue, 13 Dec 2016 09:45:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.792
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.792 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=dcrocker.net
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 CvZJL7Zr51aT; Tue, 13 Dec 2016 09:45:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from simon.songbird.com (simon.songbird.com [72.52.113.5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B6375129454; Tue, 13 Dec 2016 09:45:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.168] (76-218-8-128.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net [76.218.8.128]) (authenticated bits=0) by simon.songbird.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id uBDHl2B7014202 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 13 Dec 2016 09:47:02 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=dcrocker.net; s=default; t=1481651223; bh=kiNqf9MLV7LOHxCqQJ+LOHwnrxNK4AF1YEzSDUpI9sM=; h=From:Subject:To:References:Cc:Reply-To:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=N//saqpZfaMVi2AoyF39M7Ooa/oyigr4JXkXgoTOwymXJht0IdPS+dsw+b5mcnvIg Rb0AlQdAe9LRn941GNkWUErSD6PVeTrYXVPTSxp/UzZ/I/PugAK/8gkq3tvrMSiPZO TMXl02bsi1ohnBH9jQb0ihX+4VABSgzt+V4MLV80=
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
References: <148164272603.29334.6599219976221487711.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <254dd66d-9c18-a56d-c54a-978e65c569fb@bbiw.net> <d83b29e6-039d-3dfa-6f18-cf76186aac75@cs.tcd.ie>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
Message-ID: <403b16d9-70e7-4250-7252-e2b98ca263b5@dcrocker.net>
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2016 09:45:42 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <d83b29e6-039d-3dfa-6f18-cf76186aac75@cs.tcd.ie>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/DrZcyJGHnvGgdeiYUlr11CFAqS0>
Cc: appsawg-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-appsawg-file-scheme@ietf.org, art@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [art] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-appsawg-file-scheme-15: (with DISCUSS)
X-BeenThere: art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
List-Id: Applications and Real-Time Area Discussion <art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/art>, <mailto:art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/art/>
List-Post: <mailto:art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/art>, <mailto:art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2016 17:45:57 -0000

On 12/13/2016 8:45 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> AFAIK (though I could be wrong) this would be the first time
> the IESG would have approved a proposed standard that directly
> duplicates text that is on the whatwg's web page [1]
...
> [1] http://url.spec.whatwg.org/


Steve,

Thanks.  And yes, this is interesting.

However your citation is to a long document and what we need to assess 
this sort of issue is some precision about what is being duplicated.

The IETF draft isn't an exact duplicate of the whatwg url spec, if only 
because the IETF draft has undergone extensive revision within the IETF.

So knowing exactly which text replicates exactly which text would help.

It's clearly not a direct 'role' conflict about the basic purpose of 
each specification, since one document is for URLs and the other is for 
file schemes.

Further, the file scheme draft has very few occurrences of the string 
"URL" (3 of which are in the whatwg citation and none that are 
normative) -- and none seem to be normative(!)

The whatwg URL spec does contain a registry-ish entry for a 'file' 
scheme and some text that might be intended to serve as a specification, 
though it's quite terse.

So we still need to refine the problem statement.

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net