Re: [salud] Christer's review of draft-ietf-salud-alert-info-urns-09

[[e-mail] (Dale R. Worley)]

> From: Christer Holmberg <[e-mail]>

> >> BTW, the following sentence is unclear to me:
> >> 
> >>    "In practice, this specification extends Alert-Info in that it will
> >>    cause the use of a new class of URIs and the use of multiple URIs."
> >> 
> >> What does it mean? 
> >
> > The idea is that, while 3261 syntactically and semantically
> > *allows* non-HTTP URIs in Alert-Info, nobody ever used non-HTTP
> > URIs in Alert-Info, and nobody implemented an interpretation of
> > those URIs.
> > Thus, even though we are not changing what is officially
> > permitted, implementers will have to change their code because the
> > new *practice* will be an extension of the old practice.  (And
> > both the new practice and the old practice are a small subset of
> > what is permitted by 3261.)
> 
> Well, then you should use different wording. Because, the draft does
> not extend Alert-Info, it simply describes the usage of a new URN in
> the header field.

That's what the phrase "in practice" is indicates -- although using
such a URN was allowed in Alert-Info in principle, the meaning of such
usae was not defined, and no device actually used such a URN.  With
this RFC, the situation is changed, the usage is extended in practice.

Dale