W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > January 2011

Re: Status of RFC 1738 -- 'ftp' URI scheme

From: t.petch <ietfa@btconnect.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 12:35:50 +0100
Message-ID: <005f01cbb24c$e00e8e20$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
To: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "Paul Prescod" <paul@prescod.net>
Cc: "URI" <uri@w3.org>
----- Original Message -----
From: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
To: "Paul Prescod" <paul@prescod.net>
Cc: "Cheney, Austin" <Austin.Cheney@travelocity.com>; "John Cowan"
<cowan@mercury.ccil.org>; "URI" <uri@w3.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 9:36 AM
Subject: Re: Status of RFC 1738 -- 'ftp' URI scheme


> On 12.01.2011 08:31, Paul Prescod wrote:
> > ...
> > If I understand your concern correctly then I would respond:that RFC
> > 3986 has section 1.1.3.  URI, URL, and URN, which clarifies the
> > distinction.
> > ...
>
> Absolutely.
>
> That people are confused about this is a hint that we need to retire
> 1738 completely.

So can we just produce an I-D that declares RFC1738 historic?

I see no requirement in RFC4395 that requires us to make any
update to the IANA registry as we do so, that could come
later as and when consensus is achieved.

Tom Petch

> Best regards, Julian
>
Received on Wednesday, 12 January 2011 12:39:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:14 UTC