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

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

Hi Martin,

Thanks for the comments -- partial responses below.

--On Wednesday, July 11, 2012 18:09 +0900 "\"Martin J. Dürst\""
<[e-mail]> wrote:

>...
>> (11) Section 3.1
> 
>> In paragraph 3:
>>     The most commonly-used URI schemes in List-* headers tend
>>     to be HTTP
>>     and mailto, although they sometimes include HTTPS and FTP,
>> and in
>>     principle can contain any valid URI.
>> 
>> Use "MAILTO", not "mailto" unless you want you waste your time
>> and ours in a silly argument.
> 
> Scheme names are usually written lower-case, so I suggest to
> streamline this as:
> 
> The most commonly-used URI schemes in List-* headers tend to
> be http
> and mailto, although they sometimes include https and ftp, and
> in principle can contain any valid URI.

wfm.  Our concern was only about having some in upper case and
some in lower.

>...
> As draft-ietf-iri-3987bis isn't yet done, its difficult to say
> exactly, but while there are many changes and tweaks in the
> details, the basic principles are exactly the same. Saying
> that you can't cite RFC 3987 because there's a WG that is
> working on updating it would be about the same as saying you
> can't cite RFC 2616 (HTTP) because there's a WG working on

The difference is that the group revising HTTP seems to be bound
by strict upward compatibility.   The (tentative) decision to
change the role of IRIs from "UI overlay" to "separate protocol
element mostly suitable for new protocols" is a significant
modification that calls 3987 into question.  My own guess is
that, even if IRIs continue down that path, a profile will
evolve that is strictly upward compatible with 3987 and that
would be suitable for discussion in this sort of paragraph.  But
the timing of development of the two specs is exquisitely bad.

     thanks and regards,
      john