I feel we agree vehemently on most points:-)
I hope we can get concensus on URL in Houston. Mitra's actions on the list
since yesterday try to focus the discussion, and if this does not diverge I
can see a possibillity for concensus in Houston.
I don't want to ignore running code. However As we both argued (with
different goals obviously) documenting running code is not standardisation.
At least not IETF OPEN standardisation. We'd be foolish however to ignore
running code and I appreciate very much your/WEB efforts to contribute. I
also don't intent to get a standard that sets all implemnentors bak. However
I want a standard that is acceptable to all implementors, so none will go of
and do their own thing. I hope we can get to that in Houston.
I feel that it would be VERY USEFULL to have a short e-mail/document BEFORE
Houston, that explains what URI, URN, URL etc. stand for, and that gives a
short description of what goal they serve, how they will be used, and what
the main arguments were for structuring them as they are.
I will immediately admit that I would benefit from such a document to get
up-to-date, but I'll add that it will serve other purposes:
- can be included in IETF report to get other people up-to-date
- can be included in an informational RFC on UR*, that describes the
- can be used by Joyce, John and me to bring the rest of the IESG up-to-date
Is there anyone out there that cares to draft such a summary?