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

On 12/08/2014 05:29 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> Larry, are you saying you want to get this approved as Informational, or that plus IETF Consensus?

I've taken the liberty of adapting Larry's blog post to RFC format.  In 
the process, I've lightly updated and added to it.  Still, the bulk of 
the content remains Larry's, so the bulk of the credit goes to him.  As 
to any errors I've introduced in the process (which is quite likely as 
I'm not familiar with the template or relevant practices), the blame 
goes to me.

http://intertwingly.net/projects/pegurl/url-problem-statement.html
http://intertwingly.net/projects/pegurl/url-problem-statement.txt
http://intertwingly.net/projects/pegurl/url-problem-statement.xml

For those inclined to do so, feel free to send pull requests or create 
issues on the following:

https://github.com/webspecs/url/blob/develop/docs/url-problem-statement.xml

Comments via email are also fine.

As to Mark's question, I'm inclined to ask for "plus IETF Consensus". 
That being said, I've been unable to find what this precisely entails. 
If asking for this means that it might get pushback, I'm fine with that; 
the one thing I would not be fine with is it stalling.

> Regards,

- Sam Ruby

P.S.  Larry: if you have a problem with what I have done and wish to 
have your name and/or content removed, simply say so, and I will make 
the necessary changes.

>> On 9 Dec 2014, at 5:30 am, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com> 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.
>>
>>
>> Larry
>> --
>> http://larry.masinter.net
>>
>>> -----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
>>
>
> --
> Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
>

Received on Monday, 15 December 2014 00:06:41 UTC