W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > October to December 2005

Re: [Bug 172] Whether to obsolete 'opaquelocktoken', keep it, or remove it

From: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 12:42:48 -0800
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
CC: WebDav <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BFAB65C8.620EE%fluffy@cisco.com>

On 11/24/05 8:34 AM, "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:

> Cullen Jennings wrote:
>> 
>> I think the problem we are having here is a confusion about IANA and I think
>> I can help resolve it. I believe we all are fine with the text in section 6.
>> (If we are not, well then the rest of this may be mute).  Note this text
>> does not stop someone from using opaquelocktoken URI.
>> 
>> Julian would like to make sure that the IANA registration of opaquelocktoken
>> at http://www.iana.org/assignments/uri-schemes does not go away.
>> 
>> My recommendation is that you remove Apendix C from the draft and that you
>> change the IANA consideration to say that this specification does not
>> require any IANA actions.
>> 
>> This will not cause the opaquelocktoken to be removed from IANA. It will not
>> deprecate it. It will not make it illegal to use. It will not mean that
>> servers can't use it.
>> 
>> Cullen
> 
> Cullen,
> 
> this option (removing the URI scheme definition from the spec) was
> discussed in the conference call, and rejected after long discussion.

More below on I am not arguing this one way or another but just want to
comment on IANA ....

> 
> The problem here is that if RFC2518bis indeed "obsoletes" RFC2518, this
> will mean that the IANA registration will live in a spec that is marked
> "obsolete" in the RFC database. That is, people looking for the
> definition may first go to the RFC database, find out that RFCxxxx
> obsoletes RFC2518, and then wonder where the definition is gone.

Hmm, The IANA registration will say this is defined in 2518 and when people
look up 2518, they will find it there. That a later RFC (2518bis) updates
2518 no longer requires or suggests the use of this is OK. It's not like the
IANA registration is going to mark the opaquelocktoken as obsolete.

> 
> The consensus I recall is that we keep the URI scheme registration, but
> strip it to minimal text (referring normatively to all the good stuff in
> the URN:UUID spec).
I don't remember exactly but I suspect you are correct that this is what the
folks on the call decided to put in the draft.

> 
> The only open issue left in draft 08 (mod. editorial questions) is that
> is says that the scheme was obsoleted. It wasn't, so just dropping the
> statement would be sufficient.
Well if that is how folks want to fix this, great with me, I'm not arguing
it should be one way or another. I just wanted to make sure we were not
doing something because of a misunderstanding about IANA.


> 
> Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 24 November 2005 20:43:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:11 GMT