Re: [art] Against BCP 190

[Leif Johansson <[e-mail]>]

On 2019-07-23 17:46, Adam Roach wrote:
> On 7/23/19 11:28, Leif Johansson wrote:
>> I am having trouble articulating the sense of unease I am feeling
>> over this issue...
>>
>> The best I can muster right now is this: Reading section 2.3 of BCP190
>> I see nothing whatsoever that speaks to the interoperability concerns
>> that motivate the normative language in that (or for that matter any
>> other) section of BCP190.
> 
> 
> The purpose of BCP 190 has never been to provide advantages to protocol
> designers. That is, in fact, the opposite of its purpose. The purpose of
> BCP 190 is to provide protections to the URI namespace and the people
> who own its governance (e.g., domain owners) against protocol designers.
> It's effectively a restatement of the well-understood principle of
> "don't squat on protocol codepoints," but spelled out in terms of URIs.
> From that perspective, it is always going to be vaguely adversarial to
> protocol developers, in the same way that IANA registration policies
> more strict than "First Come First Served" are: its job is to protect a
> common resource against having parts of the URI namespace carved off for
> the exclusive use of one protocol or another.

In that case maybe this is just a matter of qualifying section 2.3 with
something along the lines of "this does not apply if your entire domain
is meant to do just one thing"

	Cheers Leif