Re: [Uri-review] PKCS#11 URI registration request review

Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com> Mon, 18 February 2013 17:29 UTC

Return-Path: <masinter@adobe.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 1574E21F8C3D for <uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Feb 2013 09:29:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.349
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.349 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.750, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1NaPEQGccMCd for <uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Feb 2013 09:29:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from exprod6og123.obsmtp.com (exprod6og123.obsmtp.com [64.18.1.241]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0445121F8C58 for <uri-review@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Feb 2013 09:29:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from outbound-smtp-1.corp.adobe.com ([192.150.11.134]) by exprod6ob123.postini.com ([64.18.5.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUSJk/N5LRdd5ZZ5xisisX2vsDj6EnEw4@postini.com; Mon, 18 Feb 2013 09:29:35 PST
Received: from inner-relay-1.corp.adobe.com ([153.32.1.51]) by outbound-smtp-1.corp.adobe.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id r1IHQR1v017242; Mon, 18 Feb 2013 09:26:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nacas03.corp.adobe.com (nacas03.corp.adobe.com [10.8.189.121]) by inner-relay-1.corp.adobe.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id r1IHTUAV003838; Mon, 18 Feb 2013 09:29:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nambxv01a.corp.adobe.com ([10.8.189.95]) by nacas03.corp.adobe.com ([10.8.189.121]) with mapi; Mon, 18 Feb 2013 09:29:30 -0800
From: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
To: Jan Pechanec <jan.pechanec@oracle.com>, Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 09:29:28 -0800
Thread-Topic: [Uri-review] PKCS#11 URI registration request review
Thread-Index: Ac4KhGhn5iUsYVoKQzu8MfWghZFLEwDeIFvg
Message-ID: <C68CB012D9182D408CED7B884F441D4D1E87D75AA6@nambxv01a.corp.adobe.com>
References: <alpine.GSO.2.00.1301261430001.28908@rejewski> <alpine.GSO.2.00.1302081722560.7401@rejewski> <CA+9kkMB2W9zZBuWvZmPE0aNf6NX_fbG6Fzx0R71QDQB9YNPamA@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.GSO.2.00.1302122349180.14210@rejewski> <CA+9kkMADpWzDk5gnRLoq6+_pHwJSjyOUsOgpJa9D6t73_45eyw@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.GSO.2.00.1302132246380.16175@rejewski>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.GSO.2.00.1302132246380.16175@rejewski>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "Darren.Moffat@oracle.com" <Darren.Moffat@oracle.com>, "uri-review@ietf.org" <uri-review@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Uri-review] PKCS#11 URI registration request 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: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 17:29:49 -0000

> 	would you suggest me to write a section on comparision of URIs
> when we don't expect people to do it?

I don't think looking at other registrations and doing the minimum is not a good guideline.

a) is it easy to say something about comparison? 
b) is it useful?

with mailto: it would be useful, but I imagine it's difficult.
with tn3270:, it isn't very useful

in this case, it seems like there's some expectation that you WILL compare the URIs, so it would be useful to say.

And the design should make it easy.

Larry