IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [apps-discuss] Call for Adoption: draft-kerwin-file-scheme

Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au> Thu, 18 December 2014 02:01 UTC

Return-Path: <phluid61@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 945A41A00BD for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Dec 2014 18:01:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.027
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.027 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UOhWlGDTD63g for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Dec 2014 18:01:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qg0-x233.google.com (mail-qg0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c04::233]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F25B01A0097 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Dec 2014 18:01:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qg0-f51.google.com with SMTP id e89so216645qgf.10 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Dec 2014 18:01:52 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=muXtAWEKzsVrcG00f1H3UkoF/TUzvwwXD0oNiQXExnU=; b=FtDEHJPWF3urOkYoPPLWa2SbBcoSUSQSBbvA0dv6oYKQaq/xhp2VKmySl/b/g5sL1W 8YzA4fN+ETnh/6MoJxj657NV+MpxbRbfuPMHgU7+ySdVDMRqLWXrpOV2hFaD2qSaBwHX mi4KUd4h7XLI7xM7M4nCPHXYO9B3uVij+HzY2o4N8eV6Yw+9iU6bW7+9FqcFXsXA8vQh zi2csLPiJekgtJYvuoUxZ5VP/M6lLe6yg1gDcrUr41Z8X3+a24ThWup0+K3tNoLsOcub OQ1k1flNZAuC+Qo5PRUqlPi1S1ImO59bIcu2RB6semaQ4g0On8WpZkcWE4550yfvVeoy 4aNw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.229.249.137 with SMTP id mk9mr46856726qcb.4.1418868112185; Wed, 17 Dec 2014 18:01:52 -0800 (PST)
Sender: phluid61@gmail.com
Received: by 10.140.86.163 with HTTP; Wed, 17 Dec 2014 18:01:52 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <54922C81.4030908@intertwingly.net>
References: <CAL0qLwYrAGk-gpfMKigy8C8CCzdA4NhQv60UdUmBtXdkQF10SA@mail.gmail.com> <54922C81.4030908@intertwingly.net>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2014 12:01:52 +1000
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 1T2GeIg3s6rUGScUxYnVGYGBSbk
Message-ID: <CACweHNDT4iNmDyGkvDBa08apPcaQC7hoAQ2gFZxYE-8wFiDrvg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11334d90cf5e2a050a73f926"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/apps-discuss/vcbzARe3IdpWCHUYiblgz8NHJs0
Cc: IETF Apps Discuss <apps-discuss@ietf.org>, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Call for Adoption: draft-kerwin-file-scheme
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2014 02:01:54 -0000

On 18 December 2014 at 11:23, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:

>
> This is NOT an objection, but I will note that draft-kerwin-file-scheme
> makes a reference to a document I co-edit:
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kerwin-file-scheme-13#ref-WHATWG-URL
>
> I further would like APPSAWG to consider the following as input:
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ruby-url-problem-00
>
>
​Yes, the more this can tie in with other efforts (notably​ in the W3C and
WHATWG) the better. If draft-ruby-url-problem eventually ends up with a BCP
we'll definitely do all we can to adhere to it, and even without, I think
the principle is worthy and we'll strive anyway. If that involves a
reference to a new informational RFC, all well and good.

Cheers
-- 
  Matthew Kerwin
  http://matthew.kerwin.net.au/

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email