Re: [dispatch] RFC 3896 and 3987 vs WHATWG URL Living Standard

John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Sun, 06 June 2021 02:21 UTC

Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.com>
X-Original-To: dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 513923A0C03 for <dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 5 Jun 2021 19:21:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 YkxH_ss7SS44 for <dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 5 Jun 2021 19:21:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (ns.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E9AB93A0C06 for <dispatch@ietf.org>; Sat, 5 Jun 2021 19:21:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [198.252.137.10] (helo=PSB) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1lpiPg-0006o5-Rk; Sat, 05 Jun 2021 22:21:20 -0400
Date: Sat, 05 Jun 2021 22:21:14 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>, dispatch@ietf.org
Message-ID: <FC052CE1D6FD5CD0B69051AE@PSB>
In-Reply-To: <002501d75a5b$08694740$193bd5c0$@acm.org>
References: <002501d75a5b$08694740$193bd5c0$@acm.org>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.10
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dispatch/dHgBoLIwmckRCShKXh86jNBxPEA>
Subject: Re: [dispatch] RFC 3896 and 3987 vs WHATWG URL Living Standard
X-BeenThere: dispatch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: DISPATCH Working Group Mail List <dispatch.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dispatch>, <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dispatch/>
List-Post: <mailto:dispatch@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch>, <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 06 Jun 2021 02:21:27 -0000


--On Saturday, June 5, 2021 15:35 -0700 Larry Masinter
<LMM@acm.org> wrote:

> Recent progress on WHATWG's URL spec led me to suggest a BOF
> on the topic for IETF 111
> 
> Provide a succinct grammar for valid URL strings
> <https://github.com/whatwg/url/issues/479> . Issue #479 .
> whatwg/url (github.com)  
> 
> But I didn't get an ack, and perhaps this belongs in
> DISPATCH/ART etc.

Larry,

This is a question rather than a statement of preference because
I have not thought about it in some time, but are you thinking
it may be time to either revise or deprecate 3896 and 3897?  I
may not have enough information but it seems clear to me that,
in terms of the specs to which implementers are paying
attention, the action has shifted toward WHATWG (and, to a
lesser extent, W3C) and away from the IETF documents.

If deprecating the IETF URI and IRI specs is really the question
(or part of it), I'd think either a BOF or a well-prepared
presentation and a rather large block of time in DISPATCH would
be appropriate.

best,
  john