Re: [EAI] Shepherd report review of mailinglist-02

John C Klensin <klensin@jck.com> Fri, 13 July 2012 16:04 UTC

Return-Path: <klensin@jck.com>
X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F41721F87DA for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Jul 2012 09:04:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.429
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.429 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.170, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YbQ-xL+F1BZZ for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Jul 2012 09:04:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (bsa2.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5462421F8722 for <ima@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Jul 2012 09:04:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [198.252.137.115] (helo=JcK-HP8200.jck.com) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.71 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <klensin@jck.com>) id 1SpiH1-0004Qa-Q2; Fri, 13 Jul 2012 11:59:19 -0400
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2012 12:04:30 -0400
From: John C Klensin <klensin@jck.com>
To: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>, John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
Message-ID: <2279587D95E0BCE4B5CDED1E@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
In-Reply-To: <50003A2A.5080005@isode.com>
References: <CAF1dMVE+2_288HmqaFfqANyB1r+KzBYXQ37i0_Gm_x1w1COqVw@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1207121737350.66870@joyce.lan> <5000022C.5020207@isode.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1207130936460.95156@joyce.lan> <50003A2A.5080005@isode.com>
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
Cc: EAI WG <ima@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [EAI] Shepherd report review of mailinglist-02
X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" <ima.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ima>
List-Post: <mailto:ima@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2012 16:04:15 -0000

--On Friday, July 13, 2012 16:09 +0100 Alexey Melnikov
<alexey.melnikov@isode.com> wrote:

> On 13/07/2012 14:39, John R Levine wrote:
>>> I think you need Informative references for mailto:, http:
>>> and ftp:  URI schemes. I am not sure why you removed the
>>> mailto: reference from  the document.
>> 
>> The various URIs only come up in the context of list headers,
>> and  there's refefrence to RFC 2369 which defines them and
>> does refer to  the sources of the various schemes.  If you
>> really think we need to  tell people where to find mailto:
>> and http: I can add refererences,  but since the only
>> discussion is with respect to % signs in the  syntax, not to
>> what they do, I don't see the need.
> 
> I believe the rule is that anything mentioned in the document
> that is not defined in it needs to be referenced.

Then, partially following John's logic, it would be as
reasonable (or more so) to clarify that the particular URIs and
references to them appear in 2369.

Precisely because this document is an informational one that
identifies issues rather than a standards track protocol spec,
I'd like to minimize the number of reference dependencies to the
degree possible.  That makes saying (whether explicitly or not)
"if you want to understand this part of the discussion, you had
better understand 2369, just as other parts of the discussion
require some understanding of 5321/5322" more reasonable that
trying to review 2369 in line and thereby talking about the
particular URIs that might be relevant.

Just my opinion, YMMD.

    john