Hello,
As I guess no other initial comments are going to come, let me present my opinion on the raised issues.
With respect to Standards Track - I actually agree this document is not to be on Standards Track, as this can't be standard anyway. But I can't agree the draft must be published as Informational, because in RFC 2026 meaning Informational RFCs are to make a record of an 'outer-space' protocol to IETF. But here are some other thoughts of mine:
I should note that 'about' URI scheme is very similar to 'view-source' URI, which I once proposed to document (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-yevstifeyev-view-source-uri/). After discussion on uri-review list we reached consensus on that it isn't necessary to document the scheme in separate document, and an only template may be enough to enter a scheme in the IANA registry (http://www.iana.org/assignments/uri-schemes/prov/view-source).
I should also note that the document which is now in IETF Last Call was primarily created for HTML5 specification, and, specifically, to allow standardizing 2 'about' URIs which are used in HTML5 draft. There wasn't the specification for 'about' URI scheme, and I guess somebody though IETF has an authority to provide one. This is very disputable, as 'about' scheme is not a protocol, or anything else, but just a now-common internal tool in some software.
Now, re-reading the draft, I see it's not a standard as we understand it, and it can't be. So, if we take this into account, let's answer:
Do we need to document 'about' URI at all, or we just need to enter it in the registry 'for the record', or we need to do nothing? It's very distant from Internet Standard of any kind, and from IETF as well. I also think HTML5 as standard itself, and I hope it'll be widely recognized as standard, may specify the two 'about' URIs it needs without our (IETF's) help. Any thoughts?..
Last Call ends on 2 May, and I hope we'll be able to reach some consensus on this.
Mykyta Yevstifeyev
As I guess no other initial comments are going to come, let me present my opinion on the raised issues.
With respect to Standards Track - I actually agree this document is not to be on Standards Track, as this can't be standard anyway. But I can't agree the draft must be published as Informational, because in RFC 2026 meaning Informational RFCs are to make a record of an 'outer-space' protocol to IETF. But here are some other thoughts of mine:
I should note that 'about' URI scheme is very similar to 'view-source' URI, which I once proposed to document (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-yevstifeyev-view-source-uri/). After discussion on uri-review list we reached consensus on that it isn't necessary to document the scheme in separate document, and an only template may be enough to enter a scheme in the IANA registry (http://www.iana.org/assignments/uri-schemes/prov/view-source).
I should also note that the document which is now in IETF Last Call was primarily created for HTML5 specification, and, specifically, to allow standardizing 2 'about' URIs which are used in HTML5 draft. There wasn't the specification for 'about' URI scheme, and I guess somebody though IETF has an authority to provide one. This is very disputable, as 'about' scheme is not a protocol, or anything else, but just a now-common internal tool in some software.
Now, re-reading the draft, I see it's not a standard as we understand it, and it can't be. So, if we take this into account, let's answer:
Do we need to document 'about' URI at all, or we just need to enter it in the registry 'for the record', or we need to do nothing? It's very distant from Internet Standard of any kind, and from IETF as well. I also think HTML5 as standard itself, and I hope it'll be widely recognized as standard, may specify the two 'about' URIs it needs without our (IETF's) help. Any thoughts?..
Last Call ends on 2 May, and I hope we'll be able to reach some consensus on this.
Mykyta Yevstifeyev
19 апреля 2012 г. 22:47 пользователь Andrew Sullivan <ajs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> написал:
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 01:57:30PM -0700, The IESG wrote:
>
> The IESG has received a request from the Applications Area Working Group
> WG (appsawg) to consider the following document:
> - 'The "about" URI Scheme'
> <draft-ietf-appsawg-about-uri-scheme-04.txt> as a Proposed Standard
I read this document. I have no strong objection to it, but I can see
no reason whatever that it should be on the standards track, because
AFAICT it doesn't standardize anything. I seem to recall saying
something similar in the WG some time ago, but I suspect I missed the
WGLC for this draft or I would have said the same thing there.
It should not be on the standards track because it fails a minimal
test for interoperability. Section 2 makes clear that there is no
common meaning of about: URIs. This means that there is no reason to
suppose a URI of the form about:foo accesses the same resource when
accessed from different products.
Best regards,
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx