I was asked to provide some pointers related to the design decisions we made in GEOPRIV. The GEOPRIV mailing list is a high-volume list and hence it is not fun to search through it. Anyway, I found some pointers of interest. Ted Hardie provided me with a few pointers around the URI scheme discussion: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/08mar/minutes/geopriv.txt James Winterbottom pointed me to the mailing list thread I started some time ago: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/geopriv/current/msg04602.html Here is another mailing list thread related to this topic: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/geopriv/current/msg05567.html Reading through the mails again I unfortunately cannot find a strong recommendations. It seems that reading through RFC 3205 we got confused. Initially, the entire discussion started with LoST where we also solicited review for a URI scheme, see http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/uri-review/current/msg00601.html I was pointed to RFC 3205 but we later decided not to define a lost URI scheme. In KEYPROV we ran into a similar issue. I also asked for review: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-review/current/msg00082.html Here is the mailing list thread that resulted from my request for review: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-review/current/msg00084.html In that specific review request the issue of separate port numbers came up. As one can seen from the mailing list discussions I was not in favor of defining a new URI scheme for HELD. Maybe we can/should reverse that decision... Ciao Hannes >-----Original Message----- >From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On >Behalf Of ext Patrik Fältström >Sent: 07 August, 2008 12:02 >To: Harald Alvestrand >Cc: Julian Reschke; IETF Discussion; Thomson, Martin >Subject: Re: New schemes vs recycling "http:" (Re: Past LC >comments ondraft-ietf-geopriv-http-location-delivery-08) > >On 7 aug 2008, at 10.56, Harald Alvestrand wrote: > >>> If a new URI scheme is defined, it needs to state what it >identifies, >>> and how it is resolved. If it identifies an HTTP resource, and >>> resolution is done via HTTP, then it seems to me you don't need it. >> Note: I totally disagree. >> >> I detest, abhor and condemn the idea that there is such a thing as a >> "HTTP resource". >> >> An URI identifies a resource. > >FWIW: I agree with this. A URI is an identifier. Some of them >might be possible to resolve using for example information >given by the URI scheme, but that is definitely not a >requirement. And it has never been one either. > > Patrik > >_______________________________________________ >Ietf mailing list >Ietf@xxxxxxxx >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf