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

On 12/08/2014 01:30 PM, Larry Masinter wrote:
> Of the suggestions I favor:
>
> Create and submit an Internet Draft which is the "Problem Statement"
> For the "URL mess", which explains the problems we're trying to
> solve, as well as at least an outline of a plan forward. Then get it
> approved as an Informational RFC. It is probably necessary to
> document the rationale, anyway.
>
> I'm willing to help, or offer some text (from my "the URL mess" blog
> post) or updating such a document.
>
> If you don't like this idea, make a better suggestion for getting the
> feedback Sam is asking for.

If other people have other suggestions, I'll follow up with those too; 
meanwhile I'd like to follow up on your offer.

I suspect that you are more familiar with the IETF RFC templates and 
machinery than I am, and as such, can I ask that you start this?  Even 
if the start is just taking an existing template, adding a title and an 
introductory paragraph, I'll gladly contribute to this effort and we can 
iterate and see if others wish to join in.

> Larry -- http://larry.masinter.net

- Sam Ruby

>> -----Original Message----- From: Sam Ruby
>> [mailto:rubys@intertwingly.net] Sent: Monday, December 08, 2014
>> 4:45 AM To: "Martin J. Dürst"; Mark Nottingham Cc:
>> public-ietf-w3c@w3.org; Philippe Le Hégaret; Wendy Seltzer Subject:
>> Re: [url] Requests for Feedback (was Feedback from TPAC)
>>
>> On 12/07/2014 11:18 PM, "Martin J. Dürst" wrote:
>>> On 2014/12/06 07:38, Sam Ruby wrote:
>>>> On 12/05/2014 03:49 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> I think such statements are rather easy to make for individuals,
>>> but not for IETF (nor for that matter for the W3C or even the
>>> WHATWG).
>>>
>>>> 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 is all true. The problem is that this interest is spread out
>>> very very thinly. Summing up every splitter of interest will add
>>> up to significant interest, but the people who are actually
>>> interested enough to read the document and comment are few and
>>> far between.
>>
>> I've met in person with Area Directors.  I've asking for the
>> W3C/IETF liaisons to make this happen.  I've outlined the
>> beginnings of a problem statement.  I've been very publicly working
>> on a specification.  I've documented significant differences
>> between implementations.
>>
>> If there are people who want to help, I'm willing to work with
>> them.
>>
>> The one thing I am not intending to do is to stop.
>>
>>> Regards,   Martin.
>>
>> - Sam Ruby
>

Received on Monday, 8 December 2014 19:29:59 UTC