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

Re: W3C TAG Last Call Comment on RFC2717bis/RFC2718bis

From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2005 14:35:01 -0400
To: www-tag@w3.org, uri@w3.org
Cc: Ted Hardie <hardie@qualcomm.com>, iesg@ietf.org, Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>, Tony Hansen<tony+urireg@maillennium.att.com>, uri@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFF3B9C2EA.522F0F39-ON85257093.00652F71-85257093.00664334@lotus.com>

In late August the TAG provided a last call comment [1] on then-proposed 
RFC2717bis/RFC2718bis [2].  In a recent note [3] to uri@w3.org, Larry 
Masinter points out that in response to (unspecified) last call comments, 
a new draft has been prepared [4], and I note at least one set of changes 
that appear to be responsive to the TAG's concerns:

<original 
href="http://ietfreport.isoc.org/all-ids/draft-hansen-2717bis-2718bis-uri-guidelines-05.txt">
2.1 Demonstratable, new, long-lived utility

Because URI schemes constitute a single, global namespace, the unbounded 
registration of new schemes is harmful to the Internet community. For this 
reason, new URI schemes SHOULD have clear utility to the broad Internet 
community, beyond that available with already registered URI schemes. 
</original>

<revised 
href="http://ietfreport.isoc.org/all-ids/draft-hansen-2717bis-2718bis-uri-guidelines-06.txt">
2.1. Demonstratable, new, long-lived utility

The use and deployment of new URI schemes in the Internet infrastructure 
is costly; some parts of URI processing may be scheme-dependent, and 
deployed software already processes URIs of well-known schemes. 
Introducing a new URI scheme may require additional software, not only for 
client software and user agents but also in additional parts of the 
network infrastructure (gateways, proxies, caches).[13] (W3C Technical 
Architecture Group, "Architecture of the World Wide Web, Volume One," 
December 2004.). URI schemes constitute a single, global namespace; it is 
desirable to avoid contention over use of short, mneumonic scheme names. 
For these reasons, the unbounded registration of new schemes is harmful. 
New URI schemes SHOULD have clear utility to the broad Internet community, 
beyond that available with already registered URI schemes.
</revised>

Speaking for myself as opposed to for the TAG as a whole, I find this to 
be exactly what I was hoping we'd see.  This seems to me a completely 
satisfactory response to the TAG's request.  Thank you to Larry and the 
other authors for the prompt and careful attention to these concerns.

Noah

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2005Aug/0014.html 
[2] 
http://ietfreport.isoc.org/all-ids/draft-hansen-2717bis-2718bis-uri-guidelines-05.txt
[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/uri/2005Oct/0004.html
[4] 
http://ietfreport.isoc.org/all-ids/draft-hansen-2717bis-2718bis-uri-guidelines-05.txt

--------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn 
IBM Corporation
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
1-617-693-4036
--------------------------------------
Received on Friday, 7 October 2005 18:35:11 UTC

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