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

On 12/15/2014 02:14 AM, Larry Masinter wrote:
> 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 was hoping for more feedback too, but meanwhile I, too, feel that it 
is better to have something to shoot at.

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

Fair enough.

> =====
> 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.

Wasn't clear to me that problem statements should also include proposed 
solutions, but I agree that I want feedback on both.

Done.

> =======
> 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.

Done.

> ====
> Nit: better section headings, e.g.,
>
> 1. Brief History of URL standards
> 2. Current Organizations and Specs in development

Done.

> ======
> 2. organizations: These need some introductions and
> hyperlinks

I've added hyperlinks.  In this brief document, it is my hope that this 
is sufficient.

> ======
> 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.

Added.

> =====
> Security considerations: I think the main impact is when
> URLs work differently in different systems.

Added.

> =====
> I don't see why RFC 2119 is cited, there is no
> normative conformance.

Removed.

> ======
> You cite [kerwin-file-scheme] but it needs to be
> in the problem statement.

This should be covered by the addition you proposed above. 
Additionally, I've now cited this work in the plan section.

> I suppose each of these could be raised as issues.

This is fine.  Keep them coming!

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

- Sam Ruby

>> -----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 11:20:34 UTC