From: "Ronald E. Daniel" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Message-Id: <9505250919.ZM4550@idaknow.acl.lanl.gov> Date: Thu, 25 May 1995 09:19:33 -0600 In-Reply-To: Larry Masinter <email@example.com> To: Larry Masinter <firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: Re: URI Charter; also Stockholm agenda items Cc: email@example.com Hi Larry, Yes, the charter does need updating. I think there is a LOT of work to be done within a "Uniform Resource Architecture" for the Internet. Leslie's URA stuff, and the UR Pseudonym stuff that Michael has mentioned in passing, are just a couple of examples of URIs that are yet to come. A quick stab at a charter is included at the end of this message. > At this point, I'm not sure what you the working group members > realisticly expect to see progress on under what time schedule. I've > heard a call that we might have examined the multiple URN schemes by > the July Stockholm meeting and evaluated them against various > scenarios and the URN requirements, and that we might be able to > choose among the various schemes by the December Dallas meeting and > move one of the schemes to Proposed Standard. This was the plan at Danvers. I am not sure how much has happened on it lately. I have been remiss in not contacting the proposers of the various other URN schemes and working more on the "stone soup party" revision of the bakeoff, and have been putting my time into URC work instead. > I'm less certain whether the working group has a schedule about URC > syntax, resolution methods, proposals and drafts. I am preparing a draft for a URC specification that I would like to present at Stockholm. I would appreciate about 20-30 minutes for that if possible. The draft will probably be sent to the list by the middle of June. Also, Michael and I wanted to see the URC Scenarios and Requirements draft moved along pretty soon. I have some stuff I still want to do to it, but those changes will also be complete in time for Stockholm. The latest revision of the draft should be sent to the list by the end of June. Can I get about 10 minutes to talk about those changes? > I would like to put onto the charter to revise the URL documents and > move them to Draft Standard as they go along standards track, taking > into account the comments of the IESG at the time they went to Draft > Standard. Seems reasonable. Here is a quick hack of a charter revision: -------------------------------- 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 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. Revise the drafts on specific URL schemes (mailserver, finger, Z39.50, ...) and submit them as proposed standards. Develop a draft on how specific URL schemes are to be vetted once this group has dissolved. Review the competing URN proposals. Select one, or a combination of the desirable portions of several, to go forward as a proposed standard. Revise the URC Scenarios and Requirements draft and submit it as an informational RFC. Review URC proposals and select one to go forward as a proposed standard. Review the Uniform Resource Agents draft and recommend a course of action for it. Review other URI drafts, such as Uniform Resource Pseudonyms, and recommend courses of action for them. In a couple of years we may want to revisit the charter to see if it needs another revision in light of Uniform Resource Architecture work. Not sure if this should be in the charter.