W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > September 2003

RE: Are we losing the plot?

From: Hammond, Tony (ELSLON) <T.Hammond@elsevier.com>
Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2003 10:55:02 +0100
Message-ID: <54A600C436EA694581B93E4BD4D4788A07E2F525@elslonexc004.eslo.co.uk>
To: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>, "Hammond, Tony (ELSLON)" <T.Hammond@elsevier.com>, "'Williams, Stuart'" <skw@hp.com>
Cc: uri@w3.org, urn-nid@lists.verisignlabs.com, leslie@thinkingcat.com, thiemann@acm.org

Sorry Larry, I must have missed the point you were making in the extract
below. I don't recall URIs being scoped as 'protocol elements intended for
communication' in RFC 2396. (Can't actually find that 'communication'
wording.) In fact, RFC 2396 is only concerned with the /syntax/ of URIs.

I also note that in RFC 2026, Section 1.1 we have the following:

   "The Internet Standards Process described in this document is
   concerned with all protocols, procedures, and conventions that are
   used in or by the Internet, *whether or not they are part of the
   TCP/IP protocol suite*."  [My emphasis - */*]  

Now I am left wondering just where URI is actually scoped for purpose. Would
appreciate any pointers to such a mission statement for URI.

Seems to me that we need to scope URI adequately, before worrying about how
new schemes are quartered under the URI allocation.

Thanks,
Tony


> > > URIs are protocol elements intended for communication.
> >
> > Really? Did the authors of RFC 2396 (and RFC 2396 bis) intend
> > that reading?
> 
> Speaking for myself: certainly. As for the others, the
> context is clear:
> 
> RFC 2396 is a standards-track document in the IETF
> (Draft Standard), and the intent for RFC 2396 BIS is for
> it to become "Standard".
> 
> RFC 2026 "The Internet Standards Process -- Version 3"
> describes the scope of such documents. Section 1.1 and
> 3.1 ("Technical Specifications") apply.
Received on Saturday, 20 September 2003 05:55:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:06 UTC