Re: Generic URI syntax incompatible with IPv6 addresses in SIP URIs

From: Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp> · Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2009 17:34:37 +0900

I agree with Julian that discussion about updates of RFC 3987 (IRI spec,
new version currently at draft-duerst-iri-bis-05) should go to
public-iri@w3.org, whereas bug reports and discussions about RFC 3986
(URI spec) should go to uri@w3.org.

But Lisa, you are the AD who eventually has to handle anything that 
comes out of these drafts, so I'm glad to follow your directions.

Julian, could you be more specific (pointer is sufficient) about what 
you mean below with "potential issue (normalization)"?

Regards,    Martin.

On 2009/04/01 6:05, Julian Reschke wrote:
> Lisa Dusseault wrote:
>> Well, I'm confused. "Moving" was a loose term, but I did think I
>> heard that we should join "public-?ri" (didn't hear very clearly at
>> the bar bof) and "public-iri" was the match I found. Since I'm a
>> newcomer to either list (URI work has been pretty slow while I've been
>> AD), just let me know which list we should use to discuss updating the
>> IETF URI RFCs.
>
> Well, we've got both
>
> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-iri/>
>
> and
>
> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/uri/>
>
> As far as I can tell, the discussion is about:
>
> - a potential issue with the IRI spec (normalization)
>
> and
>
> - a potential addition already drafted in RFC3987bis (LEIRIs)
>
> In particular, I haven't seen any bugs reported against RFC3986 in this
> context (except the lack of error handling requirements, which clearly
> is controversial).
>
> Thus, it seems that we are really talking about RFC3987bis, and thus the
> IRI mailing list would be the right place.
>
> BR, Julian
> _______________________________________________
> Apps-Discuss mailing list
> Apps-Discuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
>

-- 
#-# Martin J.Dürst, Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-# http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp   mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp