To: email@example.com Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org In-Reply-To: email@example.com's message of Thu, 25 May 1995 11:37:39 -0700 <95May25.firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: Re: URI Charter; also Stockholm agenda items From: Larry Masinter <email@example.com> Message-Id: <95May25.firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: Thu, 25 May 1995 18:22:38 PDT The goals and milestones need dates. If you want to make a stab at proposing dates, we can see if anyone else on this list is paying attention. As for revising the charter 'in a couple of years', I don't think that belongs in the charter. IETF working group committees are generally not 'standing committees': they're chartered to do a particular job and then go out of business. We can propose extending our charter, but the proposal has to be specific and also have an endpoint. > Revise the URL document (RFC 1738) and move it to the next step on the > standards track, taking into account the comments of the IESG at the > time it went to Draft Standard. Roy Fielding may have volunteered to do this. > Revise the drafts on specific URL schemes (mailserver, finger, > Z39.50, ...) and submit them as proposed standards. These were supposed to go to last call, but I haven't heard anything. > Develop a draft on how specific URL schemes are to be vetted once this > group has dissolved. Someone at the last IETF slipped me a business card volunteering to work on this, but I lost it. Speak up! > Review URC proposals and select one to go forward as a proposed standard. Do we have more than one proposal at this point? Actually, do we have any proposals? > Revise the URC Scenarios and Requirements draft and submit it as an > informational RFC. Yes, what's the date this will be completed? > Review the Uniform Resource Agents draft and recommend a course of > action for it. I'd like to hear from folks who want to move forward with this. It was an interesting idea, but I'm not sure how it differs from 'extended-URLs-with-lots-of-features'. > Review other URI drafts, such as Uniform Resource Pseudonyms, and > recommend courses of action for them. Sorry, I've never heard of such a beast, and it's not been discussed on this list. We don't need to pursue things merely as busy work.