Ned Freed wrote: > By all means do so if you want, but IMO it's a waste of time. It's like > that > cautionary line finance folks use: Past performance is not a reliable > indication of future results. Just because someone group of implementors > got it > right (or wrong) in the past doesn't mean the next group won't get it > wrong (or > right) this time. What such a query is effectively trying to do is to > prove a > negative. Good luck with that. > > Again, the bottom line is that the potential for a screwup is there and > past > experience tells us that the potential is sometimes, um, exploited, > sometimes > not. And that's more than sufficient to warrant discussion of the issue > in the > document. Let me rephrase it then: as far as I know, there is no evidence whatsoever that using an HTTP based URI as an XML namespace name so far has caused excessive traffic. I would argue that those who argue against their use will have to provide such evidence. And yes, having the specification *warning* against automatic retrieval is always a good idea (see, for instance, <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc3648.html#rfc.section.11.1>). BR, Julian _______________________________________________ IETF mailing list IETF@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf