W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > July 2011

Re: [apps-discuss] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-yevstifeyev-ftp-uri-scheme-04.txt

From: Frank Ellermann <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2011 22:04:54 +0200
Message-ID: <CAHhFybry+kayJ4-Z+JuA0iY3rALSiB=OKn5zC8VUFcUMuUtwcQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: SM <sm@resistor.net>
Cc: URI <uri@w3.org>, Apps-discuss list <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
On 8 July 2011 19:57, SM <sm@resistor.net> wrote:

>| Providing an e-mail address is a courtesy that allows archive
>| site operators to get some idea of who is using their services.

> That's from FYI 24.

RFC 1635, vintage 1994.  Apparently something that should go the
way of the Dodo together with the long obsolete "netiquette RFC".

In this millennium security and privacy and i18n are IMO not
optional, it is not more the same internet as in 1994 (when I
was still mostly using FidoNet and Videotex, or rarely NetNews).

I vaguely recall that "privacy considerations" (in addition to
the existing "IANA" / "i18n" / "security" considerations) were
proposed, or was that a "privacy directorate"?

I'd like to have "privacy considerations" in all future I-Ds -
it could be merged with the "security considerations" or even
omitted as beside the point depending on the final RFC, but an
indication in I-Ds that the authors "considered privacy" like
"security" or "i18n" or "IANA" would be good.  If authors then
decide that this is bureaucratic nonsense to be ignored for
their purposes it worked as designed:  At least they spent the
milliseconds to think about it.

-Frank
Received on Friday, 8 July 2011 20:05:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 8 July 2011 20:05:55 GMT