Schedule for RFC2396bis

This is both a last call comment on the Architecture Document as
well as a general comment to the TAG, and serves to discard an
action item from the I18N WG (core TF).


The Architecture Document has a dependency on RFC2396bis.
The Character Model has a dependency on the IRI spec, which
has a dependency on RFC2396bis (because early last year,
the syntax in the IRI spec was adapted to RFC2396bis).
Moving RFC2396bis forward therefore seems crucial for the
advancement of various related specs.

The reference in the Architecture Document for RFC2396bis is to
Internet Draft draft-fielding-uri-rfc2396bis-03, which is no longer
active, see:
Trying a newer version, at,
gives an even more explicit message:

This Internet-Draft has been deleted. Unrevised documents placed in the
Internet-Drafts directories have a maximum life of six months. After
that time, they are deleted. This Internet-Draft was not published as
an RFC.

The name of the internet-draft was draft-fielding-uri-rfc2396bis-03.txt

Internet-Drafts are not an archival document series, and expired
drafts, such as this one, are not available; please do not ask for
copies... they are not available. The Secretariat does not have
information as to future plans of the authors or working groups WRT the
deleted Internet-Draft.

For more information or a copy of the document, contact the author directly.

Draft Author(s):
Tim Berners-Lee <>

rfc2396bis seems to be crucial for the Architecture Document, indeed
the 'Status of this Document' section says:
This document uses the concepts and terms regarding URIs as defined in 
draft-fielding-uri-rfc2396bis-03, preferring them to those defined in RFC 
2396. The IETF Internet Draft draft-fielding-uri-rfc2396bis-03 is expected 
to obsolete RFC 2396, which is the current URI standard. The TAG is 
tracking the evolution of draft-fielding-uri-rfc2396bis-03.

Last call comments:

- The sections of the Architecture Document about URIs are difficult to
   review without an active Internet-Draft of RFC2396bis. The Architecture
   Document should have refered, and future versions should refer, to a
   version of this draft in an official Internet Drafts repository (with
   explanations of how to find the next version in case the expiry date of
   the current version is before the end of last call). [It is also possible
   to write to the Internet-Drafts Secretariat and request an extension
   for an Internet-Draft.]

- The Architecture Document should not advance (e.g. to CR) without
   corresponding advancement of RFC2396bis (e.g. to IETF last call or

Comment directly to the TAG:

Given the importance of RFC2396bis, we want to strongly encourage
the TAG and its members not only to track the evolution of
draft-fielding-uri-rfc2396bis-03, but to do everything possible
and necessary for a quick advancement of this document. If there
is anything we can help, please tell us.
[In the intent of moving this document forward, and encouraged by the lead
editor, I have extensively commented on draft-fielding-uri-rfc2396bis-03
starting at
and would be glad to help sorting out and where appropriate implementing
these comments.]

For the IRI draft (and therefore the Character Model), the alternative
would be to change the syntax back to RFC 2396. But this is not desirable.

Regards,    Martin. 

Received on Wednesday, 4 February 2004 18:09:45 UTC