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

[Dave Crocker <[e-mail]>]

Steve,

Sorry, but I can't tell what the specific concern is...  Please clarify 
with specific references.

Inline...


On 12/13/2016 7:25 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> Appendix C: this spec and the whatwg web page may or may not
> be in conflict.

1. "May or may not" presumably means that your concern is we don't know. 
  But since that lack of knowledge could be applied to a potentially 
infinite set of web sites, what's the reasons for selecting this one to 
be concerned about?  Further since there's clear text in Appendix C and 
text at the whatwg (but you don't cite which page), it's not clear why 
the answer isn't clear.

2. Since Appendix C is non-normative, what makes the concern of possible 
(but undocumented) divergence a reason for blocking with a Discuss?

3. If there is a deeper concern that you are raising, I've missed it.


 >  I think this may be the first PS that we've
> produced where that fact finally hits that fan - is that

What fact?


> right? If not, then I'll clear as we'll already have decided
> there's nothing to be done about odd behaviour with
> "competing" specifications for the same thing (that thing

You haven't cited any competing specifications, not even possibly 
competing ones.


> being RFC3986). If this is the first time we've gotten to
> this point, then I think the IESG ought explicitly decide
> that we are going to live with what we all know is a pretty
> crap situation where different implementers (web vs. non-web
> basically) supporting various kinds of URL/URI are liable to
> end up doing different and potentially non-interoperable
> things. (There is no action required from the author. For the
> IESG - we discussed this a couple of years back, but there
> have been some personnel changes since and I forget if the
> current set of ADs are or are not up to speed with and ok
> with this.)


d/


-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net