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

What frustrates me is that we met, in person, face to face.  You 
proposed some specific actions whereby the IETF (where you are a member) 
and the TAG (where you are a member) would either endorse or propose 
changes to what I proposed.  I took notes and published them promptly:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-whatwg-archive/2014Nov/0000.html

I've seen no follow through on what you personally proposed.  I want to 
know what it takes to get an endorsement from Mark Nottingham.  Not a 
thanks that I've picked up this work, an actual endorsement of URL 
Living Standard and/or the URL W3C Working draft, as well as the stated 
direction.

In addition, let me now up the ante.  You mentioned a W3C 
recommendation.  I have personally updated the document which is on the 
W3C Rec track:

http://www.w3.org/TR/url/

I have kept a working draft up to date:

http://rawgit.com/w3ctag/url/develop/url.html

Please tell me what it will take for me to formally propose that a 
RFC3986bis be created.  If necessary, I'll volunteer to be the author.

- Sam Ruby

On 12/18/2014 11:01 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>
>> On 19 Dec 2014, at 12:47 pm, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com> wrote:
>>
>> Mark, as you know, consensus is built one person at a time.
>
> As much as any aphorism is true, I agree.
>
>> Do you agree with this document's "Problem Statement",
>> that it identifies an important problem. If not, why not?
>>
>> If so, do you believe that the Proposed Solution is the
>> best course forward to pursue, and likely to succeed?
>> Do you think the problem unsolvable, or do you have
>> ideas for better solutions.
>>
>> You, Mark. And others on the list of course.
>
> This list is not a forum for building IETF consensus. I've directly CC:ed the relevant ADs for their thoughts on <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ruby-url-problem-00>; my thoughts as liaison below.
>
> Sam asked what the appropriate channels were, and I tried to point him in the right direction.
>
> I don't disagree with the document -- I just don't understand how trying to get IETF Consensus on it helps, or is worth the (considerable) effort involved in doing so, as opposed to getting a sense of the IESG in a liaison statement exchange, or more informally.
>
> Furthermore, doing so begs the question regarding the other organisations listed -- e.g., do we need a W3C Recommendation to serve the same function in that organisation?
>
> What would help me do my job as liaison is to understand you intention is. If you're looking to get the IETF to agree to a path forward via consensus, it is likely to be difficult and time-consuming (as I and others have outlined), since organisations tend not to like to sign blank cheques like that.
>
> Specifically, Section 4 proposes the following activities relating to IETF documents:
>
> """
> Build a plan to update or obsolete [RFC3986], [RFC3987], [RFC5895], and [kerwin-file-scheme] to be consistent with [URL-LS] and [UTS-46].
> ...
> Reconcile how [appsawg-uri-scheme-reg] and [URL-LS] handle currently unknown schemes, update [appsawg-uri-scheme-reg] to state that registration applies to both URIs and URLs...
> """
>
> RFC3987 and 3987 are standards-track documents, and anything that updates or obsoletes them needs to go through the process. Publishing a consensus document saying we're going to come up with a plan to do so seems overly bureaucratic, and fraught with the possibility that people's expectations will still fail to be met despite that consensus (since consensus to plan doesn't mean that there's consensus on *a* plan).
>
> If you want to start working on them, the best way to do so is to bring issues to people's attention, either on the URI list, or as errata. Once we have data, we can start to talk about what's necessary, and how to go about that (e.g., in a WG-forming BoF). Yes, that's messy and slow, but I don't see how getting this document to consensus first helps avoid that.
>
> RFC5895 is Informational, on the Independent Stream. If you want to update it, I suggest you engage the authors (Pete and Paul).
>
> kerwin-file-scheme is currently being considered for adoption by the APPSAWG. If you want to make changes, just go ahead and start that discussion there.
>
> appsawg-uri-scheme-reg is an active document in the APPAWG, and being held for the outcome of whatever's happening in the W3C. If you want to make changes, just go ahead and start that discussion there.
>
> Pete, Barry - anything else?
>
> Regards,
>
>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Larry
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Mark Nottingham [mailto:mnot@mnot.net]
>>> Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 3:36 PM
>>> To: Sam Ruby
>>> Cc: public-ietf-w3c@w3.org; Wendy Seltzer; Philippe Le Hégaret
>>> Subject: Re: [url] Requests for Feedback (was Feedback from TPAC)
>>>
>>> Hey Sam,
>>>
>>>> On 18 Dec 2014, at 10:34 pm, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>> I'm still looking for advice on how to get this approved as Informational plus
>>> IETF Consensus.
>>>
>>> Did you see <http://www.w3.org/mid/EBA7F2BE-DCC7-4BD2-AEAC-
>>> 92790C30A92D@mnot.net>? I think that contains the starting points you need;
>>> if you need more information, glad to help. Again I urge you to coordinate with
>>> Wendy and Philippe (CC:ed).
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
>>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
>

Received on Friday, 19 December 2014 12:08:59 UTC