To: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: DRAFT Minutes, URL BOF From: Larry Masinter <email@example.com> Message-Id: <96Dec14.151151pst."2695"@golden.parc.xerox.com> Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 15:11:51 PST Minutes by Andy Mutz & Ryan Moats, merged and edited by Larry Masinter Please send me corrections within the next few days; I'll then submit to firstname.lastname@example.org ================================================================ The URL BOF was convened to decide if there was a need to form a URL working group for either of two purposes: - Advance URL syntax draft to Draft Standard - Create an RFC for BCP to describe the process for creating new URL schemes There is a new draft-fielding-url-syntax-NN.txt (-00 in internet drafts, -01 and -02 submitted) which combines the generic syntax from RFC 1738 and 1808. In addition, there are at least half a dozen new URL schemes being proposed. Do they match the generic syntax in draft-fielding-url-syntax? Some of the individual schemes that were in 1738 have been split out into separate drafts. Should a working group review these? RFC 1738 states a process for registering new URL schemes will be developed. This has never been documented and needs to be. Further, it is becoming clear that URL schemes constitute a namespace, so how does registration occur? Many people expressed the feeling that no new working group is needed to process draft-fielding-url-syntax (except via mail on the mailing list), but a working group is needed to deal with the process. Harald Avelstraad had a web page about _his_ requirements for URL schemes, (http://www.apps.ietf.org/apps) and this was proposed as a starting point. There is belief that IANA has a file listing registered URL schemes. Right now, URL schemes need a standards track document. That's ok for the most part, but private use URL schemes are around (e.g., the "about" scheme in Netscape Navigator and the "aol" scheme in the AOL web interface.) Some browsers allow plugins to recognize new URL schemes. Is a namespace required for definition to avoid collision? (Harald) "What the IETF thinks about URL schemes is somewhat irrelevant in the marketplace. There's a java: scheme and a clsid: scheme in use. What I would like to see is 'This is community consensus on how to handle new URL schemes' Therefore I want to see community input into this, so I don't want to write this. The best way to achieve consensus is to have a classic WG, with a chair that believes we can get there, membership from the big URL players (Microsoft, Netscape, Web Consortium, etc.) so that the WG will be 'listened to'. If we find a chair and distinguished members, then we should have a WG. Otherwise, we continue on the current path of requiring a standard track document for each URL scheme." We need some general advice on URL schemes; for example, some proposals use "//" as 'top level' even though the syntax after the '//' is not an internet host name. There are some proposed URL schemes where the URL doesn't really locate a resource on the Internet, e.g., "phone", "tv", "fax". These kinds of design questions should be answered consistently. "Given that there are so many URL schemes backlogged as I-D, shouldn't there be a single WG to handle this?" The point of listing the Internet Drafts wasn't that the WG should review schemes in perpetuity, it was to show the problem and that a procedure was needed. (Harald) "The WG will develop and apply a process, and recommend a process as a result, but WG's are not permanent and the URL working group won't be either." The working group will NOT consider the generic syntax draft. There's some desire to make sure that the Draft Standard gets advanced before the working group is chartered, just to keep the boundary clear. Some of the folks from web browser makers felt there was real value in having the accepted IETF process documented. At the meeting, people from W3C and various web browser companies endorsed the formation of the working group and pledged to participate. - editors: Larry Masinter volunteered to co-edit the vetting and advice document. - mailing list The email@example.com list would be used to announce the formation of the working group, but a new mailing list would be set up with new subscriptions. The 'firstname.lastname@example.org' list is saved for discussing generic URI issues that are not otherwise being handled by another group. To subscribe to email@example.com, send mail to firstname.lastname@example.org. - chair: Rich Petke volunteers to co-chair a new WG. - charter (To devise the process for vetting new URL schemes and give advice to authors, history.) Milestones to be defined, but should not be a long-term process. This work should be short-term; ideally a few months work. A number of other namespace vetting schemes exists now. One for MIME types. One for SMTP extensions. Review of these schemes would be useful.