Re: URI Charter; also Stockholm agenda items

Larry Masinter (masinter@parc.xerox.com)
Thu, 25 May 1995 18:22:38 PDT


To: rdaniel@acl.lanl.gov
Cc: uri@bunyip.com
In-Reply-To: rdaniel@acl.lanl.gov's message of Thu, 25 May 1995 11:37:39 -0700 <95May25.113745pdt.2761@golden.parc.xerox.com>
Subject: Re: URI Charter; also Stockholm agenda items
From: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
Message-Id: <95May25.182251pdt.2761@golden.parc.xerox.com>
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.