IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Uri-review] New URI scheme for review

Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org> Tue, 11 October 2011 19:55 UTC

Return-Path: <mark@coactus.com>
X-Original-To: uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE5AE11E8088 for <uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 12:55:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 3coWFI-8nwv5 for <uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 12:55:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qy0-f172.google.com (mail-qy0-f172.google.com [209.85.216.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4485411E807F for <uri-review@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 12:55:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qyk32 with SMTP id 32so3304853qyk.10 for <uri-review@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 12:55:51 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.68.12.7 with SMTP id u7mr47862716pbb.1.1318362951327; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 12:55:51 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: mark@coactus.com
Received: by 10.142.144.3 with HTTP; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 12:55:51 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAHcUcOEPSaPMmzbv9H=zGSRxW2cQ_kx9m6GGOGuiWeCNvy_L=A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAHcUcOGgv8deMk3yw0FH8HrHee5Hi0pXcFCRwYDfaO_ta_nuGA@mail.gmail.com> <CAHhFybrUH3TA5_pUkNi-5j82HZHhyt_Z4xibnQ8=JZ_dCXidDQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAHcUcOEPSaPMmzbv9H=zGSRxW2cQ_kx9m6GGOGuiWeCNvy_L=A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 15:55:51 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: d1bStrVEJjPVerfmVFJ0kKlhQ0I
Message-ID: <CALcoZipyV7uxqa2jYET5_PeLkOsVrr1WYJtFd1C0yde4GBnP2Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
To: Bob Van Zant <bob@eventbrite.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Cc: Frank Ellermann <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com>, uri-review@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Uri-review] New URI scheme for review
X-BeenThere: uri-review@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proposed URI Schemes <uri-review.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/uri-review>, <mailto:uri-review-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/uri-review>
List-Post: <mailto:uri-review@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:uri-review-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review>, <mailto:uri-review-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 19:55:53 -0000

On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 3:35 PM, Bob Van Zant <bob@eventbrite.com> wrote:
>> Disclaimer, I have not yet read the 4395bis drafts, maybe 4395bis
>> will drop the "long-lived utility" blurb in favour of a new "above
>> all let's have it registered" approach.
>
> Nope, it still has its own section (3.1).

Right, but that only applies to permanent registration. I think
provisional was the right choice here for these
lets-just-get-it-registered reasons.

Mark.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email