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

I’m happy that you did this. I'd been meaning to, but
I was hoping for more feedback about the right direction.
It's better, though, to have something to shoot at.

I'd like to make a pass before it get submitted. 

===== 
I've been thinking that it would be better to include
the "plan" and not just the problem statement,
since you want feedback on both.

I mean something based on
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-whatwg-archive/2014Nov/0000.html

and subsequent planning on this list.
Make that section 4.
=======
I’m reluctant to be listed first, ever. And it needs more
work before I'd want it submitted with my name on it,
though I'm willing to help. For now I'd just put me second.
====
Nit: better section headings, e.g.,

1. Brief History of URL standards
2. Current Organizations and Specs in development
======
2. organizations: These need some introductions and
hyperlinks
======
Problem statement: The main problem is conflicting
specs that don't match each other and overlap.
Maybe this should separate 'Problem Statement from
 IETF point of view' from other problem
statements.
=====
Security considerations: I think the main impact is when
URLs work differently in different systems.
=====
I don't see why RFC 2119 is cited, there is no 
normative conformance.
======
You cite [kerwin-file-scheme] but it needs to be
in the problem statement.

I suppose each of these could be raised as issues.

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


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sam Ruby [mailto:rubys@intertwingly.net]
> Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2014 4:06 PM
> To: Mark Nottingham; Larry Masinter
> Cc: public-ietf-w3c@w3.org; Philippe Le Hégaret; Wendy Seltzer
> Subject: 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 07:14:35 UTC