- From: Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
- Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 18:56:39 +0900
- To: John C Klensin <klensin@jck.com>
- CC: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>, "public-iri@w3.org" <public-iri@w3.org>
[I meant to cc the IRI WG, but apparently I didn't. This now goes separately to the IRI WG, if you want it to be cross-posted because it's relevant to both groups, please cc. ima@ietf.org, the mailing list of the EAI WG.] On 2012/07/13 20:04, "Martin J. Dürst" wrote: > [cc'ed to the mailing list of the IRI WG] > > [IRI WG: This came up in the EAI (email address internationalization) WG > when discussing > http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-eai-mailinglistbis-03, but > it's highly relevant to the work of the IRI WG.] > > [Everybody, please remove the EAI mailing list if you continue > discussing IRIs, and the IRI mailing list if you discuss the > mailinglistbis draft, thanks!] > > > Hello John, > > On 2012/07/11 21:23, John C Klensin wrote: >> Hi Martin, > >>> ... >>> As draft-ietf-iri-3987bis isn't yet done, its difficult to say >>> exactly, but while there are many changes and tweaks in the >>> details, the basic principles are exactly the same. Saying >>> that you can't cite RFC 3987 because there's a WG that is >>> working on updating it would be about the same as saying you >>> can't cite RFC 2616 (HTTP) because there's a WG working on >> >> The difference is that the group revising HTTP seems to be bound >> by strict upward compatibility. The (tentative) decision to >> change the role of IRIs from "UI overlay" to "separate protocol >> element mostly suitable for new protocols" is a significant >> modification that calls 3987 into question. My own guess is >> that, even if IRIs continue down that path, a profile will >> evolve that is strictly upward compatible with 3987 and that >> would be suitable for discussion in this sort of paragraph. But >> the timing of development of the two specs is exquisitely bad. > > While busy with my day job, I have been able to think about the above. I > think that what you say above is factually mistaken, but I'm starting to > see where in the IRI discussion you might have picked up some faint > signals (one of your many strengths) that let to your interpretation. > > But let's go back to the facts: > > First (I'm probably writing this for the third time), IRIs as defined in > RFC 3987 are not "UI overlay". They are clearly defined as protocol > elements. Of course, they can also be used as "UI overlay", http would > be a good example. IDNs are a parallel. > > Second, of course IRIs are suitable for new protocols. But that also has > been the case in RFC 3987. > > Third, as far as I know, there is no need for a "profile" that is > strictly upward compatible with RFC 3987. Although the 'modus operandi' > of the IRI WG may be a bit more chaotic than the well-oiled machine of > the httpbis WG, the goal, at least as far as I am concerned, is exactly > the same: To update the spec so that it can be clearer and better > aligned with actual practice. > > Fourth, possibly the most serious compatibility issue between RFC 3987 > as written and 3987bis as it is currently written is the change from > IDNA 2003 to IDNA 2008. There are varying opinions on whether the change > from IDNA 2003 to 2008 was the right thing to do. But given that you are > one of the main contributors to IDNA 2008, I wouldn't expect you to > throw the first stone at 3987bis. > > Fifth, while there have been some proposals in the IRI WG (and before in > chartering it) to be more liberal with backwards compatibility and > compatibility with URIs, I have tried hard (and I think up to now > succeeded) to make sure that this is preserved. As an example, the > charter of the IRI WG contains an explicit provision that a rechartering > is needed should any updates to RFC 3986 become necessary. > > So I think what's unfortunate is not the timing of development of the > two specs, but the timing of your confusion. I hope this can be cleared > up very soon. > > If you can point out anything in the actual current 3987bis draft > (rather than the discussion surrounding it) that let to your confusion, > I'd appreciate it if you could tell the IRI WG, so that we can (if > necessary after discussion) fix this as soon as possible. > > Regards, Martin. > _______________________________________________ > IMA mailing list > IMA@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima >
Received on Monday, 16 July 2012 09:57:17 UTC