IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> Tue, 13 December 2016 18:30 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 8BC2012965B; Tue, 13 Dec 2016 10:30:56 -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 SSDSYKDrdBaG; Tue, 13 Dec 2016 10:30:55 -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 83845129641; Tue, 13 Dec 2016 10:30:55 -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 uBDIW0NM016431 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 13 Dec 2016 10:32:00 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=dcrocker.net; s=default; t=1481653921; bh=tArTN5AY2IJ4z9rgHZHZd2tjeHgplYyRHzJmTUINPHQ=; h=Subject:To:References:Cc:From:Reply-To:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=dwcpxYpbVMA4UUzF5ywVIvqVjemu6o9hdCQcOJwVPstAae9b7MMbSL+Foa1UW7DYW vWkt0MvJgPb47+MpBM1DS6UPFVrsMVbuF4LQwqdrxbsURTfPDAkIXgnJJjOxwWTZ65 UJM9HfCJ2mF9RJoP/4W/18wifr2ea1RmpSrD9mzs=
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> <403b16d9-70e7-4250-7252-e2b98ca263b5@dcrocker.net> <80d86bf6-fdfd-8751-04ce-22a7926f2317@cs.tcd.ie>
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
Message-ID: <f0a2b54e-faff-a46f-3459-e8f519f8faa8@dcrocker.net>
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2016 10:30:40 -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: <80d86bf6-fdfd-8751-04ce-22a7926f2317@cs.tcd.ie>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/V78xXVnN8upQ1WCBfpwMd50vitY>
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 18:30:56 -0000

On 12/13/2016 9:56 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> but the discuss point I've raised is to ask the
> IESG to consider whether or not we're gonna grin and bear this
> particular kind of (IMO possibly damaging) duplication. I suspect
> that the only practical answer is to do just that for at least
> the time for which [1] is considered useful to web developers.


Stephen,


Small point of procedure:

      The current draft is an update to an existing RFC (1738) on URLs, 
which is dated 1994.

      I doubt the whatwg work goes back that far.

So the concern you are raising is for the later, independent decisions 
of an independent group, and its possible, future divergences from 
existing work that was published in the IETF 22 years ago and is now 
being revised.

In effect the concern you are raising is about the basic existence of 
the (earlier) IETF work, not about a new detail.

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email