Re: On 'Internet Drafts'
Roy Fielding <fielding@beach.w3.org> Wed, 12 July 1995 04:56 UTC
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa02597; 12 Jul 95 0:56 EDT
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa02593; 12 Jul 95 0:55 EDT
Received: from services.Bunyip.COM by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa25099; 12 Jul 95 0:56 EDT
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by services.bunyip.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id XAA27423 for uri-out; Tue, 11 Jul 1995 23:38:21 -0400
Received: from mocha.bunyip.com (mocha.Bunyip.Com [192.197.208.1]) by services.bunyip.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) with SMTP id XAA27418 for <uri@services.bunyip.com>; Tue, 11 Jul 1995 23:38:19 -0400
Received: from beach.w3.org by mocha.bunyip.com with SMTP (5.65a/IDA-1.4.2b/CC-Guru-2b) id AA23937 (mail destined for uri@services.bunyip.com); Tue, 11 Jul 95 23:38:18 -0400
Received: from beach.w3.org (fielding@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by beach.w3.org (8.6.9/8.6.9) with ESMTP id XAA01225 for <uri@bunyip.com>; Tue, 11 Jul 1995 23:38:18 -0400
Message-Id: <199507120338.XAA01225@beach.w3.org>
To: uri@bunyip.com
Subject: Re: On 'Internet Drafts'
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 10 Jul 1995 09:59:00 PDT." <95Jul10.095905pdt.2762@golden.parc.xerox.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 1995 23:38:15 -0400
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Roy Fielding <fielding@beach.w3.org>
X-Orig-Sender: owner-uri@bunyip.com
Precedence: bulk
>I think we have too many "draft-ietf-uri-*" Internet drafts. I don't >think I understood the rules. I'm still not sure I understand the >rules, but I think the general rule is: > >> if it is the work of one or several individuals, it is >> "draft-yourname-*". If this is a document that is the work of the >> committee, and has been circulated on the list, and we have agreed >> that you are the editor of the document and you have agreed to make >> changes according to the consensus of the committee, then it becomes >> "draft-ietf-uri-*". I think that would be a good rule, but only after the charter is revised. The problem is that such a rule only works if you can determine first what it is the WG is working on, and assign official editorial tasks to individuals responsible to the group's decisions. For example, I would retitle my paper "URI Architecture" if that were indeed a topic for specification by the WG. >If we're intending to produce something as an RFC, then it needs to >appear in the 'milestones' of the charter. If we're not intending to >turn a document into an RFC (informational, standards track, >experimental) then it probably shouldn't be a working-group document. Yep. >deleted: >* draft-ietf-uri-resource-names-03.txt >* draft-ietf-uri-urc-00.txt >* draft-ietf-uri-urc-spec-00.txt >* draft-ietf-uri-urn2urc-00.txt >* draft-ietf-uri-yaurn-00.txt Query: How should these be handled at my WG info site? I currently have them marked as expired, but perhaps it would be better if I made a separate page for historical documents. Naturally, I will delete any documents that the author(s) wish to be deleted. >URN schemes. I think we're intending to chose one or more of these and >then develop them in committee: > >* draft-ietf-uri-urn-x-dns-2-00.txt >* draft-ietf-uri-urn-handles-00.txt >* draft-ietf-uri-urn-path-00.txt I personally feel that they should have the same status as URL schemes. >Other problem cases: >... >* draft-ietf-uri-roy-urn-urc-00.txt > probably shouldn't be a working group I-D in its current form. I.e., > the working group shouldn't be working on 'how Roy would > implement URNs'. I'll ask that it be removed after we have agreed on a revised charter. [It may come back as something else, or maybe not at all.] ....Roy T. Fielding Department of ICS, University of California, Irvine USA Visiting Scholar, MIT/LCS + World-Wide Web Consortium (fielding@w3.org) (fielding@ics.uci.edu)
- On 'Internet Drafts' Larry Masinter
- Re: On 'Internet Drafts' Roy Fielding
- Re: On 'Internet Drafts' Keith Moore
- Re: On 'Internet Drafts' Larry Masinter