From: "Ronald E. Daniel" <email@example.com> Message-Id: <9507050950.ZM20189@idaknow.acl.lanl.gov> Date: Wed, 5 Jul 1995 09:50:10 -0600 In-Reply-To: Larry Masinter <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: Larry Masinter <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Re: Whither URI: Revising the charter, disband URI? Here is a revised version of the draft charter I sent out in May. The big change was to add dates to the goals and milestones. There are parenthetical notes to ask questions or make comments. They are not supposed to be in the final charter. ===================== The URI-WG is chartered to define a set of standards for the encoding of system-independent resource identification, description, and location information for the use of Internet information services. The working group is expected to produce a set of documents that specify standard represenations of Uniform Resource Names (URNs) for resource identification, Uniform Resource Locations (URLs) for resource location, Uniform Resource Characteristics (URCs) for resource description and the resolution of URNs to URLs. The group will also review proposals and produce standards for other Uniform Resource Identifiers as they are suggested during the lifetime of the working group. Uniform Resource Agents and Uniform Resource Pseudonyms are two classes of identifer that have been suggested. These standards will provide a framework that allows Internet users to uniquely identify Internet resources and utilize them in applications with appropriate levels of security. Goals and Milestones ==================== Review and approve the revised charter before the Dallas IETF. Revise the URL document (RFC 1738) and move it to the next step on the standards track (Draft standard?), taking into account the comments of the IESG at the time they went to Draft Standard. (Larry, you said that Roy may have colunteered to do this. Is that the case?) Revise the drafts on specific URL schemes (mailserver, finger, Z39.50, ...) and submit them as proposed standards. (Larry, what was the outcome of last call on these?) Develop a draft on how specific URL schemes are to be vetted once this group has dissolved. The first version of the draft should be sent to the editors in time for the spring '96 IETF. Review the competing URN proposals. Select one, or a combination of the desirable portions of several, to go forward as a proposed standard. The selection should be completed by the Dallas IETF, and the first draft of the unified scheme should be prepared in time for the spring '96 IETF. Revise the URC Scenarios and Requirements draft. Issue "last call" shortly after the Stockholm IETF. Recommend it for publication as an informational RFC. Review URC proposals and select one to go forward as a proposed standard. Discussion should be largely complete by the spring '96 IETF, and a "last call" should be issued before the summer '96 meeting. (In reply to the first draft of the charter revisions, Larry asked if we had any, let alone multiple, URC specs to discuss. Since then I have sent out my draft for a SGML-based URC service. As far as I know, that is the only current proposal for a URC spec. Can some people out there PLEASE send in their comments on that draft? We can't move it forward unless we discuss it.) Review the Uniform Resource Agents draft, ca. the Stockholm meeting. Recommend a course of action for that work before Dallas. If the work receives approval of the WG, the draft should be revised in time for Dallas. Last call might be issued in time for the summer '96 meeting. (Do we need something about a UR architecture draft?) -- Ron Daniel Jr. email: email@example.com Advanced Computing Lab voice: (505) 665-0597 MS B-287 TA-3 Bldg. 2011 fax: (505) 665-4939 Los Alamos National Lab http://www.acl.lanl.gov/~rdaniel/ Los Alamos, NM, 87545 tautology: "Conformity is very popular"