W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-soap-jms@w3.org > December 2008

[Fwd: Re: JMS URI Scheme]

From: Eric Johnson <eric@tibco.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 14:10:00 -0800
Message-ID: <494978B8.7010905@tibco.com>
To: "SOAP/JMS (list)" <public-soap-jms@w3.org>

FYI, another email from Lisa about the URI scheme.

-Eric.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	Re: JMS URI Scheme
Date: 	Wed, 17 Dec 2008 14:07:28 -0800
From: 	Lisa Dusseault <ldusseault@commerce.net>
To: 	Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>
CC: 	Nathan Sowatskey (nsowatsk) <nsowatsk@cisco.com>, eric@tibco.com, 
Mark Townsley <townsley@cisco.com>
References: 	<C55AE34A.9A4A3%nsowatsk@cisco.com> 
<87D8F4B7D6B6F74DAA250DD8AB2FA0C40731D2A3@xmb-ams-339.emea.cisco.com> 
<D25254A2-9E9E-4A0B-98CD-66AA3F328BCD@cisco.com>



I agree this needs to be AD sponsored Informational, and I will do  
it.  However, I'm concerned about getting proper review even in the  
APP area.  There may be issues around how this could be used to get  
some other agent to execute code, a kind of issue we don't have a lot  
of familiarity with.

First, please solicit an external review of this document -- anybody  
you feel can be seen to have experience with the security aspects of  
sending around instructions to load class objects etc.  That review  
doesn't have to be an IETF expert.

Second, see if you can find an IETF shepherd for the document to help  
you work through process issues.  The shepherd can be anybody who  
feels they understand the technology and the IETF process well enough  
to help with this document.

Third, please send the draft to apps-discuss@ietf.org and to urn-nid@apps.ietf.org 
.  In particular, sending to the latter list is always required as  
part of URN/URI scheme registration.   You might solicit a shepherd on  
the apps-discuss list, or see if Cullen or Mark have any suggestions  
for you.

I'll send separate mail with my review comments.

Thank-you.
Lisa Dusseault

On Dec 9, 2008, at 1:09 PM, Cullen Jennings wrote:

>
> Hi Lisa,
>
> Some folks (Nathan and Eric on To line) have been trying to register  
> a scheme for JMS. Draft is at
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-merrick-jms-uri-05
>
> I advised them that AD Sponsor of an Informational draft was best  
> way for them to get this to RFC and to get the scheme registered in  
> the IETF tree. It seemed to me like it was more an APP area thing  
> than anything else so I was wondering if you could have a look at it  
> and see if it was something you might sponsor.
>
> It has been discussed on URI-Review list.
>
> Thanks, Cullen
>
>>
>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> FYI - a response back from the IETF secretary mailing list.
>> >>
>> >> Haven't spent time thinking about which option is best to pursue.
>> >>
>> >> -Eric.
>> >>
>> >> -------- Original Message --------
>> >> Subject:                 [rt.amsl.com #12047] JMS URI Scheme  
>> submission
>> >> Date:                  Mon, 01 Dec 2008 11:06:47 -0800
>> >> From:                  Cindy Morgan via RT <iesg-secretary@ietf.org 
>> >
>> >> Reply-To:                 iesg-secretary@ietf.org
>> >> To:                  eric@tibco.com
>> >> References:                 <RT-Ticket-12047@rt.amsl.com>
>> >> <4931D2FB.4010209@tibco.com>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Hi Eric,
>> >>
>> >> It looks like this is an independent submission outside of an IETF
>> >> working group.  In that case, you have few options.
>> >>
>> >> 1) If you think this work relates to work going on in one of the  
>> IETF's
>> >> working groups, you can approach the chair and ask about having  
>> your
>> >> draft adopted as a working group submission.  (A list of IETF  
>> working
>> >> groups is available at http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/wg-dir.html
>> >> <http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/wg-dir.html> .)
>> >>
>> >> 2) You can approach one of the IESG Area Directors and ask them to
>> >> shepherd your document through the standards process as an  
>> individual
>> >> submission.  IESG members are listed at http://www.ietf.org/IESGmems.html
>> >> <http://www.ietf.org/IESGmems.html> .
>> >>
>> >> 3) You can submit your draft directly to the RFC Editor
>> >> (rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org) for publication.  For information on  
>> how to
>> >> make an independent submission, please see the RFC Editor web  
>> site at
>> >> http://www.rfc-editor.org/indsubs.html
>> >> <http://www.rfc-editor.org/indsubs.html> .
>> >>
>> >> More general information about the RFC Publication process is  
>> available
>> >> at http://www.rfc-editor.org/howtopub.html
>> >> <http://www.rfc-editor.org/howtopub.html> .
>> >>
>> >> Best regards,
>> >> Cindy
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Sat Nov 29 15:40:55 2008, eric@tibco.com wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> To whom it may concern,
>> >>>
>> >>> Being somewhat naive about the process by which a URI scheme  
>> might be
>> >>> accepted, I think I've hit upon the fact that I'm supposed to  
>> email this
>> >>> address requesting the start of the process for getting our  
>> "jms" URI
>> >>> scheme draft published as an RFC (if that's even the right  
>> terminology,
>> >>> and the right way to think about it?)
>> >>>
>> >>> The data tracker link is here:
>> >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/draft-merrick-jms-uri/
>> >>> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/draft-merrick-jms-uri/>
>> >>>
>> >>> And the latest draft is:
>> >>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-merrick-jms-uri-05.txt
>> >>> <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-merrick-jms- 
>> uri-05.txt>
>> >>>
>> >>> Please advise as to the next steps....  Thanks.
>> >>>
>> >>> Sincerely,
>> >>> Eric Johnson.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>
Received on Wednesday, 17 December 2008 22:10:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 18 December 2010 18:16:19 GMT