W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > July 2005

Last call issue: draft-hansen-2717bis-2718-bis-uri-guidelines

From: Leslie Daigle <leslie@thinkingcat.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 13:59:57 -0400
Message-ID: <42DFE29D.7070209@thinkingcat.com>
To: "Iesg (E-mail)" <iesg@ietf.org>, tony+urireg@maillennium.att.com, LMM@acm.org
CC: uri@w3.org


Overall, a nice document, IMO, and much needed.

However, I'm re-iterating an issue I raised earlier (see forwarded
message, below), as I don't believe this version of the document
adequately addresses the problem, and I do believe it is a real

I believe that Step 3 of the registration process described
in Section 5.2 (copied below) has to be changed to do one
(or both) of the following:

	a) Make very plain that uri@w3.org is a general URI
	   discussion list, has no current affiliation with
	   the IETF or IETF standards  (such as this registration
	   process) and can provide helpful input in a general
	   way. That input, however, may extend well beyond the scope
	   of the registration requirements (and may in fact
	   be at odds with the expert review).

	b) Provide a different mailing list, specifically
	   constituted for reviewing URI scheme proposals
	   against this registration process document (only).

I.e., the uri@w3.org is not going to, and cannot be made to,
provide the function described in "b)", and yet that's what
is implied in the current text.

As a nit -- I suspect the "should" in the first sentence of this
section ought to be a "must" (or "MUST").

> 5.2  Registration Procedures
>    Someone wishing to register a URI scheme should:
>    1.  Check the IANA URI scheme registry to see whether or not there is
>        already an entry for the desired name.  If there is already an
>        entry under the name, choose a different URI scheme name.
>    2.  Prepare a URI scheme registration template, as specified in
>        Section 5.4.  The URI scheme registration template may be
>        contained in an Internet Draft (alone, or as part of some other
> Hansen, et al.          Expires December 31, 2005               [Page 8]
> Internet-Draft               New URI Schemes                   June 2005
>        protocol specification), but this is not necessary.
>    3.  Send a copy of the template or a pointer to the containing
>        document (with specific reference to the section with the
>        template) to the mailing list uri@w3.org, requesting review.
>        Allow a reasonable time for discussion and comments.  Make
>        revisions as appropriate based on review comments.  Four weeks is
>        reasonable for a permanent registration requests.  Mailing list
>        review is RECOMMENDED prior to registration, but may also be
>        required by the 'Designated Expert' during the 'Expert Review'
>        period.
>    4.  Submit the (possibly updated) registration template (or pointer
>        to document containing it) to IANA at iana@iana.org [13],
>        specifying whether 'permanent' or 'provisional' registration is
>        requested.


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Uri-review] Re: FW: Last Call: 'Domain Name System 
UniformResource Identifiers' to Proposed Standard
Resent-Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2005 23:57:31 +0000
Resent-From: uri@w3.org
Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2005 18:45:11 -0500
From: Leslie Daigle <leslie@thinkingcat.com>
To: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
CC: uri@w3.org, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>,      Larry Masinter 
<LMM@acm.org>, uri-review@ietf.org
References: <E1D2CMh-0008Ba-4u@frink.w3.org> 


Yes, I have stopped re-living, but haven't quite managed to
forget the painful last days of Bunyip's existence, so I do
recall where the uri mailing list came from ;-)

Larry is asking about a mailing list for "mailing list review"
in an IETF process document.  It's not a matter of where that is
hosted, but it does need to be specifically and appropriately
populated.  I doubt that everyone who should be on it (including
people from non-APPs areas within the IETF, for eg) will
be subscribed to or active in the W3C URI IG.

So, the split (as I see it) is:

	. uri@w3.org  talk about a scheme and  work the bumps
	  off the rough edges off it if you like

	. uri-review@ietf.org (or some other mailing list set
	  up for the purpose)  formal review for IETF process.

Some people would just like to get their URI scheme registered
in the IANA registry without getting caught up in extensive
discussion of issues that are not strictly relevant to the
review process.


Martin Duerst wrote:
> At 03:33 05/03/03, Leslie Daigle wrote:
>  >
>  >I disagree with the proposal.
>  >
>  >As you have noted, the uri@w3.org mailing list has been
>  >"upgraded" to serve a purpose for the W3C URI IG activity.
>  >
>  >While there may be a significant overlap between people
>  >interested in that, and folks who should be discussing
>  >IETF documents proposing new URI schemes, it is not
>  >a complete match, and the formal activities are different.
> I agree that formally, the activities are different. The
> issue is not so much (I hope) the W3C URI IG, because the
> list is at the same time, and continues to be, the mailing
> list of the former IETF URI WG, which the W3C volunteered
> to host after bunyip could no longer do it
> (and it's listed as such at
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/nwg_list.cgi).
> We also carry the full archives of that list, see e.g.
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/uri/1994Dec/0013.html.
> Back to what I personally really care about, namely the
> quality of the review, there are ample example over the
> duration of the existence of the uri-review@ietf.org list
> that the quality of the review a scheme received was a
> lot better when that happened on uri@w3.org than on
> uri-review@ietf.org. That has nothing at all to do with
> where the list is hosted, or whether it's called, among
> else, an IG or what, but it has a lot to do with the fact
> that, mostly for historical reasons, there are a lot more
> people, and a lot more people with the right experience
> and knowledge, hanging out on uri@w3.org than on
> uri-review@ietf.org. If we can fix that, then all's well.
> If we can't (and it hasn't happened since for the last
> two years, but that doesn't say that it might not happen).
> So my main question is what ideas and actual efforts you
> are thinking about or proposing to fix the above situation.
> Regards,    Martin.
>  >Leslie.
>  >
>  >Martin Duerst wrote:
>  >> As noted by Dan, the uri-review@ietf.org mailing list has never
>  >> taken off. All the real discussions have been taking place on
>  >> this list. There was discussion on closing uri-review@w3.org,
>  >> my guess is that the only reason that discussion wasn't conclusive
>  >> was that a lot of peolpe who care about URIs and URI schemes
>  >> were just not on that list.
>  >> So I suggest to use uri@w3.org as the list for URI scheme reviews;
>  >> the chance that a new URI scheme gets some good comments is much
>  >> higher on this list than on uri-review@ietf.org.
>  >> Regards,    Martin.
>  >> P.S.: While uri@w3.org recently has been 'upgraded' to be the
>  >>       W3C URI IG, it continues to serve as the mailing list for
>  >>       the former IETF URL WG (just hosted by W3C).
Received on Thursday, 21 July 2005 18:05:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:09 UTC