Subject: [idn] Re: proposed charter items for possible URI working group

From: Martin Duerst <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 01:54:14 +0900

Hello Larry,

I had some discussions on this at the IETF last week.
It wasn't clear whether we would need a WG for this,
and one idea was to first wait to see Roy's update
to be able to judge the nature of the changes.

My take is that if it's just simple updates/cleanup
of RFC 2396, a WG may not be necessary. But if we are
going to work on other documents, too, then maybe it's
better to have a WG.

I propose to add one additional item:

Update the syntax of host names: Currently, this is one of the
only places where %hh-escaping isn't allowed. Implementations
are mixed, some browsers e.g. accept http://www.w%33.org while
others don't. So this may go under "(b) document variations in
current practice, as warnings to implementors." below.
With Internationalized Domain Names, allowing %hh in host names
is necessary for consistency.

The actual text is currently in
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-idn-uri-02.txt,
and there is some chance that the IDN WG moves this forward.
But in either way, it should be folded into the URI spec.

Regards,     Martin.

At 11:42 02/07/20 -0700, Larry Masinter wrote:

>I've been asked to propose a charter for a possible URI working
>group to work on next phase topics. The working group should
>be narrowly focused to insure viability and keep us from wandering
>into unsolvable problems. For this purpose, I propose the
>following items to be in scope:
>
>(1) update RFC 2396 as follows:
>    Focus is to be consistent with existing, current widespread
>    deployment. The goal is to prepare to move RFC 2396 to
>    Standard. (A few exceptions to this noted below.)
>
>    (a) Fix bugs already noted in errata (bugs in the BNF?)
>    (b) document variations in current practice, as warnings
>        to implementors.
>    (c) fold in changes proposed for IPv6 addresses
>         (this may not be exactly 'current practice')
>    (d) include additional terminology definitions for common
>        words used with URIs ('resolution'), and update the
>        description of URI/URN/URL language in accordance with
>        current usage.
>
>
>
>(2) update RFC 2717 (Registration Procedures) and RFC 2718
>    (Guidelines for new schemes) to take into account current
>    practice.
>
>NOT IN SCOPE
>
>I propose to NOT fold in the IRI definition, but to allow
>it to proceed along standards track at its own pace. The
>revised URI standard can note the IRI work as a separate
>effort.
>
>OTHER TOPICS
>
>I think it would be good to finally 'obsolete' RFC 1738,
>but it's necessary to do something, I think, with the
>URI scheme definitions that are only documented there:
>"file" is used widely but documented correctly nowhere.
>"http" was defined in the HTTP spec and "mailto" has its
>own RFC, "telnet" is still used, "news" and "gopher"
>less so, and I haven't seen a "nttp", "wais" or "prospero"
>in years.
>
>
>I think Roy Fielding has started on some of this update work,
>but I haven't heard status in a while. Roy?
>
>Larry