[Uri-review] RE: draft-paskin-doi-uri-03.txt [Response to Larry Masinter]
"Larry Masinter" <LMM@acm.org> Tue, 20 May 2003 05:51 UTC
Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA18006 for <uri-review-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Tue, 20 May 2003 01:51:56 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h4K5LDu20231 for uri-review-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 20 May 2003 01:21:13 -0400
Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h4K5LDB20228 for <uri-review-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org>; Tue, 20 May 2003 01:21:13 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA18000 for <uri-review-web-archive@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 May 2003 01:51:25 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19I03l-0001aM-00 for uri-review-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 20 May 2003 01:53:14 -0400
Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=www1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19I03l-0001aJ-00 for uri-review-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 20 May 2003 01:53:13 -0400
Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h4K5L4B20173; Tue, 20 May 2003 01:21:04 -0400
Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h4K5KYB20031 for <uri-review@optimus.ietf.org>; Tue, 20 May 2003 01:20:34 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA17932 for <uri-review@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 May 2003 01:50:47 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19I039-0001Yv-00 for uri-review@ietf.org; Tue, 20 May 2003 01:52:35 -0400
Received: from smtp-relay-3.adobe.com ([192.150.22.10] helo=smtp-relay-3.sea.adobe.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19I038-0001Wr-00 for uri-review@ietf.org; Tue, 20 May 2003 01:52:34 -0400
Received: from inner-relay-3.corp.adobe.com (inner-relay-3 [153.32.251.51]) by smtp-relay-3.sea.adobe.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h4K5r9hq029263 for <uri-review@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 May 2003 22:53:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailsj-v1.corp.adobe.com (mailsj-dev.corp.adobe.com [153.32.1.192]) by inner-relay-3.corp.adobe.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h4K5r5nl000028 for <uri-review@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 May 2003 22:53:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from MASINTERPAD ([153.32.66.183]) by mailsj-v1.corp.adobe.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15 v1 Jul 11 2001 16:32:57) with ESMTP id HF68CG00.P4J; Mon, 19 May 2003 22:53:04 -0700
From: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
To: "'Hammond, Tony (ELSLON)'" <T.Hammond@elsevier.com>
Cc: hardie@qualcomm.com, uri-review@ietf.org
Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 22:53:05 -0700
Message-ID: <001d01c31e94$1540fec0$b7422099@MASINTERPAD>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4510
In-Reply-To: <54A600C436EA694581B93E4BD4D4788A06B739FF@elslonexc004.wins.epress.co.uk>
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [Uri-review] RE: draft-paskin-doi-uri-03.txt [Response to Larry Masinter]
Sender: uri-review-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: uri-review-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: uri-review@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review>, <mailto:uri-review-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: Proposed URI Schemes <uri-review.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:uri-review@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:uri-review-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review>, <mailto:uri-review-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> We hope these points meet some of your concerns. Tony, not really. As you've demonstrated, people read RFCs and take them as precedents that can be followed. I think the paskin-doi-uri internet draft, in its current form, sets a bad precedent, for all of the reasons I've cited. Were you to included material stating what you've added in email messages, I still don't think it would meet the spirit of the guidelines for new schemes. In case it isn't clear, though: I have no veto. The process is "rough consensus". If you can convince most of the members of the community that my concerns are invalid and that the document is just fine as it is, well... go for it! Larry -- http://larry.masinter.net _______________________________________________ Uri-review mailing list Uri-review@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review
- [Uri-review] draft-paskin-doi-uri-03.txt [Respons… Hammond, Tony (ELSLON)
- [Uri-review] RE: draft-paskin-doi-uri-03.txt [Res… Larry Masinter
- [Uri-review] RE: draft-paskin-doi-uri-03.txt [Res… Hammond, Tony (ELSLON)