Re: [url] Requests for Feedback (was Feedback from TPAC)

On 12/05/2014 03:49 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> Sam,
>
>> On 6 Dec 2014, at 3:52 am, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>>
>> Mark, thanks for the support, but I think that this is a matter that needs a bit more clarity and wide review.
>>
>> PLH, Wendy, as the official W3C liaisons[1] to the IETF, I asking you to officially request that the IETF take a position on this subject.
>
> I’ll (of course) defer to Philippe and Wendy as to what they do, but generally we try to keep the communication informal when possible, to keep things productive.
>
> The “official” path is for them to send a Liaison Statement. Such a device needs to be addressed to someone; since there isn’t a WG that is actively working on URIs in general, it’d need to go the Applications Area, the IETF as a whole, or perhaps the IAB.
>
> If the statement is asking for approval for your plan, or for “official” feedback, as Roy says we’d need consensus, and that’s not something we can do in a week or two — especially concerning URIs, where we’ve failed to make meaningful progress for several years now.
>
> If you want a “yes, we’re aware of it” response, I think you’ve already got it, but you’re more than welcome to ask for it in official form.
>
> See also:
>    http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/91/minutes/minutes-91-appsawg
> (search for “W3C Update”, and note that this is a condensation of a ~10 minute discussion)

What I am trying to do is distinguish between:

1) I've read the draft, I approve of it, and therefore I have no comments.

2) I've not read the draft, and therefore I have no comments.

Despite the fact that there is no active WG within the IETF working on 
this, I would have thought that this would be a topic of significant 
interest to the broader IETF community.  This would tend to argue for #1 
above, but I fear that the current state is #2.

> Cheers,
>
> [ with IETF Liaison hat on ]
>
>> - Sam Ruby
>>
>> [1] http://www.w3.org/wiki/IetfW3cLiaison
>>
>> On 12/02/2014 12:12 AM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>>> Hi Sam,
>>>
>>>> On 1 Dec 2014, at 3:30 am, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> My understanding (see forwarded message below) was that the IETF and W3C TAG were going to issue statements providing input to the evolution of the URL Standard in mid-November.  As November is now drawing to a close, can I get an update on the status of this?
>>>
>>> I've discussed this with Barry, the responsible AD, who has said he's going to hold the document until this and another (unrelated) situation become more clear (and perhaps beyond) -- see:
>>>    http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/msg13358.html
>>>
>>>> Additionally, the effort to merge my parser work with the remainder of the URL standard is now at a point where I would like to encourage wider review -- either by individuals or by groups:
>>>>
>>>> https://specs.webplatform.org/url/webspecs/develop/
>>>>
>>>> I'd suggest that the first three sections (namely, 'Goals', 'URLs', and 'Authoring Requirements') would be of particular interest to the IETF and TAG, but I welcome input on all sections.
>>>>
>>>> My preferred method if input is GitHub pull requests:
>>>>
>>>> https://github.com/webspecs/url/pulls
>>>>
>>>> Alternate methods of input (including discourse itself) and other related links can be found here:
>>>>
>>>> http://discourse.specifiction.org/t/about-the-url-category/691
>>>>
>>>> Finally, input on the following bug would be appreciated:
>>>>
>>>> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=25946
>>>
>>> Like Domenic, I strongly support these goals; I've done it in person, but I also want to publicly thank you for grasping the nettle -- one that has stung many a person.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> - Sam Ruby
>>>>
>>>> -------- Forwarded Message --------
>>>> Subject: [url] Feedback from TPAC
>>>> Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2014 17:01:50 -0700
>>>> From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
>>>> To: WhatWG <whatwg@whatwg.org>
>>>>
>>>> bcc: WebApps, IETF, TAG in the hopes that replies go to a single place.
>>>>
>>>> - - -
>>>>
>>>> I took the opportunity this week to meet with a number of parties
>>>> interested in the topic of URLs including not only a number of Working
>>>> Groups, AC and AB members, but also members of the TAG and members of
>>>> the IETF.
>>>>
>>>> Some of the feedback related to the proposal I am working on[1].  Some
>>>> of the feedback related to mechanics (example: employing Travis to do
>>>> build checks, something that makes more sense on the master copy of a
>>>> given specification than on a hopefully temporary branch.  These are not
>>>> the topics of this email.
>>>>
>>>> The remaining items are more general, and are the subject of this note.
>>>> As is often the case, they are intertwined.  I'll simply jump into the
>>>> middle and work outwards from there.
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>> The nature of the world is that there will continue to be people who
>>>> define more schemes.  A current example is
>>>> http://openjdk.java.net/jeps/220 (search for "New URI scheme for naming
>>>> stored modules, classes, and resources").  And people who are doing so
>>>> will have a tendency to look to the IETF.
>>>>
>>>> Meanwhile, The IETF is actively working on a update:
>>>>
>>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-appsawg-uri-scheme-reg-04
>>>>
>>>> They are meeting F2F in a little over a week[2].  URIs in general, and
>>>> this proposal in specific will be discussed, and for that reason now
>>>> would be a good time to provide feedback.  I've only quickly scanned it,
>>>> but it appears sane to me in that it basically says that new schemes
>>>> will not be viewed as relative schemes[3].
>>>>
>>>> The obvious disconnect is that this is a registry for URI schemes, not
>>>> URLs.  It looks to me like making a few, small, surgical updates to the
>>>> URL Standard would stitch all this together.
>>>>
>>>> 1) Change the URL Goals to only obsolete RFC 3987, not RFC 3986 too.
>>>>
>>>> 2) Reference draft-ietf-appsawg-uri-scheme-reg in
>>>> https://url.spec.whatwg.org/#url-writing as the way to register schemes,
>>>> stating that the set of valid URI schemes is the set of valid URL schemes.
>>>>
>>>> 3) Explicitly state that canonical URLs (i.e., the output of the URL
>>>> parse step) not only round trip but also are valid URIs.  If there are
>>>> any RFC 3986 errata and/or willful violations necessary to make that a
>>>> true statement, so be it.
>>>>
>>>> That's it.  The rest of the URL specification can stand as is.
>>>>
>>>> What this means operationally is that there are two terms, URIs and
>>>> URLs.  URIs would be of a legacy, academic topic that may be of
>>>> relevance to some (primarily back-end server) applications.  URLs are
>>>> most people, and most applications, will be concerned with.  This
>>>> includes all the specifications which today reference IRIs (as an
>>>> example, RFC 4287, namely, Atom).
>>>>
>>>> My sense was that all of the people I talked to were generally OK with
>>>> this, and that we would be likely to see statements from both the IETF
>>>> and the W3C TAG along these lines mid November-ish, most likely just
>>>> after IETF meeting 91.
>>>>
>>>> More specifically, if something along these lines I describe above were
>>>> done, the IETF would be open to the idea of errata to RFC3987 and
>>>> updating specs to reference URLs.
>>>>
>>>> - Sam Ruby
>>>>
>>>> [1] http://intertwingly.net/projects/pegurl/url.html
>>>> [2] https://www.ietf.org/meeting/91/index.html
>>>> [3] https://url.spec.whatwg.org/#relative-scheme
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
>>>
>
> --
> Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
>
>
>

Received on Friday, 5 December 2014 22:39:41 UTC