Re: New schemes vs recycling "http:" (Re: Past LC comments ondraft-ietf-geopriv-http-location-delivery-08)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hannes,

thanks for the pointers....

Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo) wrote:
...
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. ...

For the record, there was some discussion in the appsarea meeting in Vancouver about updating BCP56 (RFC3205).

I think if the conclusion from reading it is that you need new URI schemes and port numbers for anything "beyond webbrowsing", then that definitively does not represent IETF consensus (as of today) or the state of the art, or even recent IETF specifications (CalDAV, AtomPub, whatnot).

Best regards, Julian
_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]