URI WG direction and status

John C Klensin (klensin@mail1.reston.mci.net)
Thu, 20 Jul 1995 11:59:33 -0400


Date: Thu, 20 Jul 1995 11:59:33 -0400
From: John C Klensin <klensin@mail1.reston.mci.net>
Subject: URI WG direction and status
To: uri@bunyip.com
Cc: Harald Alvestrand <Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no>, jkrey@isi.edu
Message-Id: <01HT3C7EWMQA000A90@MAIL1.RESTON.MCI.NET>

As most of you have presumably heard by now, we are shutting down the URI
WG, effective immediately.  That leaves a few loose ends whose status is
summarized in this note.

(1) draft-ietf-uri-url-finger-02.txt

Our (the ADs) impression is that this document has not received adequate
review, but is basically sound.   A poll taken in Stockholm indicated too
few people who had studied the document and the related Finger materials to
do the review on the spot.   Rather than keep the WG open and hope that
adequate review occurs, we are soliciting volunteers to form an ad hoc
review committee on this document.   Volunteers, who are willing to study
the current finger Draft Standard (RFC-1288), the current draft of its
proposed replacement (draft-zimmerman-finger-03.txt) and the finger URL
proposal and write short reviews for the ADs in the next two weeks should
contact Harald and myself.

(2) draft-ietf-uri-mailserv-02.txt

The situation on this is similar to that of the above.  Readers who have
studied the existing major mail RFCs (821, 822, relevant sections of 1123,
and who understand the commands and relative behavior of at least a couple
of major mail-based servers and who are willing to do a careful review of
this document in the next few weeks should contact Harald and myself.

(3) Review of RFC 1738 (the Proposed Standard URL definition document) and
preparation and review of a Draft Standard version.   We hope to get most or
all of this work done without convening a WG.  Volunteers to do editing
work, or those with strong opinions about whether a WG -- with this task
alone -- is needed, should contact Harald and myself.

(4) Over the next several weeks, we expect to see proposals for several new
working groups with narrow and focused charters.  It is our intention to
post drafts of those charters to this list in order to obtain comments about
areas of overlap, gaps, realism of schedules, etc.

Finally, in the heat and tensions of today's discussions, I came down on
Larry much harder than was necessary or appropriate under the circumstances.
I've apologized to him personally, and want to repeat that apology for the list.

   john


v