W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > July 1995

Re: Whither URI: Revising the charter, disband URI?

From: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 1995 11:17:23 PDT
To: sollins@lcs.mit.edu
Cc: rdaniel@acl.lanl.gov, uri@bunyip.com
Message-Id: <95Jul5.111736pdt.2762@golden.parc.xerox.com>
I'd like to make progress on the charter before the meeting. In
particular, if it's not in our charter to work on it, it shouldn't be
on our agenda to talk about it.

> Goals and Milestones
> ====================

> Review and approve the revised charter before the Dallas IETF.

The charter can't have a goal of revising the charter.

> 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?)

yes, draft standard. Comments not only of the IESG but various others
as well. In fact, it's reasonable to review how many of the
recommendations made in the URL document actually have been
implemented at the end of 6 months. Roy may well have volunteered, but
it would be reassuring to hear again from him on this.

> 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?)

The mailserver and finger drafts are expected to be revised. Z39.50
was withdrawn by the ZIG to be resubmitted for discussion later.

> 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.

Uh, to what editors? Who is writing this draft, BTW?

> 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.

This is a bit too much fine-tuning. I think we just need dates by
which we expect the work to move to either proposed, informational or
experimental. I think 'the URN proposals' have been separated out
into several documents, each of which need different dates and
milestones: we have one for 'standard syntax' and another for
'experimental protocol for resolution'. We may reach convergence on
some before the other.

> Revise the URC Scenarios and Requirements draft. Issue "last call"
> shortly after the Stockholm IETF. Recommend it for publication
> as an informational RFC.

Ditto. Milestone dates should just be dates ('August 1995' instead of
'after the Stockholm IETF').

> 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.)

Ditto. Just: June 1996. Unless someone else proposes a URC syntax,
this is it. If there are no compelling reasons not to push forward
with this one. And if there's no discussion, why wait until next year?

> 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?)

I don't know why we need to wait to discuss what we're going to do
with URAs. I think there are three choices:

a) Drop the topic from the WG
b) Promote them as 'experimental RFC'
c) promote them as 'proposed standard' RFC

I don't think (c) is reasonable, so the question is whether you want
to do (b) in the WG.
Received on Wednesday, 5 July 1995 14:18:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Sunday, 10 October 2021 22:17:31 UTC