Re: [Uri-review] Internet-Draft: Using URIs With Multiple Transport Stacks

[Graham Klyne <[e-mail]>]

Henry, thanks for this reminder.

FWIW, looking at section 4 
(http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/SchemeProtocols.html#findings), I think R1, R3, 
G5, G6, R7, G8, G9 (i.e., most of the findings!) all have some bearing on the 
issues being discussed, insofar as they affect the World Wide Web.  On a brief 
scan, I think the discussion here is as relevant today as it was in 2005 - some 
maybe more so with the move to HTTPS-everywhere.

#g
--


On 07/07/2017 16:15, Henry S. Thompson wrote:
> Dave Thaler writes:
>
>> Recently we've seen multiple requests (including from three different
>> SDOs) and discussions on different lists regarding using URI schemes
>> for application-layer protocols that can operate over multiple
>> transport stacks (e.g., UDP, TCP, websockets, HTTP, etc.). This draft
>> summarizes the various technical discussions and issues raised.
>>
>> Not sure if there is any regular meeting time available at IETF, but I
>> at least wanted to share this more broadly for visibility, and to
>> solicit additional feedback.
>
> The W3C TAG devoted a fair amount of effort to this issue about 12 years
> ago, and our thinking at the time (2005) is recorded here:
>
>    https://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/SchemeProtocols.html
>
> which may provide a useful independent perspective, albeit somewhat
> dated in some respects.
>
> ht
>