Re: Some remarks on 4395bis

* Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
>I've recently re-read the IRI WG document - 4395bis draft 
>(draft-ietf-iri-4395bis-irireg).  What I'd currently like to ask is why 
>we want to write a new document obsoleting RFC 4395, but in fact 
>repeating everything currently found in it modulo some minor 
>clarifications and extending its action on schemes used with IRIs.  I 
>personally think such approach is too heavyweight.  Couldn't writing and 
>publishing an RFC updating RFC 4395 to accommodate IRI schemes in its 
>registration procedures be enough?  Any thoughts on this?

I think you have to consider how people use the document. If you have a
very widely known document that people refer to frequently, keeping it
as it is and making minor updates through other documents makes a lot of
sense. RFC 4395 however is mostly read by people unfamiliar with it when
they contemplate registering a scheme (and they are best served having
everything in one place) and by a very small group of people who review
scheme registrations. As member of both groups, I certainly prefer to
have one document where I do not need to check whether a later document
changed something or other.
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/

Received on Sunday, 3 July 2011 00:29:46 UTC