Subject: RFC2396bis now a Full Standard

From: Joe Gregorio <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 16:32:41 -0400

Given that RFC2396bis is now a full standard should we update the 
format and publication protocol specs to follow?

    -joe

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: The IESG <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 18:07:22 -0400
Subject: Protocol Action: 'Uniform Resource Identifier (URI): Generic 
Syntax' to Full Standard
To: IETF-Announce <[email-masked]>
Cc: Internet Architecture Board <[email-masked]>, RFC Editor
<[email-masked]>

The IESG has approved the following document:

- 'Uniform Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax '
   <draft-fielding-uri-rfc2396bis-07.txt> as a Full Standard

This document has been reviewed in the IETF but is not the product of an
IETF Working Group.

The IESG contact person is Ted Hardie.

Technical Summary

This document advances the URI specification to Full Standard.
It defines the generic syntax for URIs and describes a process for resolving
URI references that are in relative form. It also contains guidelines for the
use
of URIs on the Internet and security considerations which are
common to the use of URIs.  The grammar it defines is a superset
of valid URIs, so that a common parser or similar component
can be built without scheme-specific data.

Working Group Summary

The URI working group is not active at this time, but the mailing list
([email-masked]) remains active.  Members of the mailing list reviewed
this document extensively, and a comprehensive issues list was
maintained, with recorded resolutions of each of the issues raised.
The document also received editorial comments during Last Call;
a new version of the document with additional explanatory text
was generated in response to the issues raised.  URIs are
widely in used many Internet context, and there has been no
dissent that a Full Standard updating RFC 2396 would be valuable.

Protocol Quality

This document was reviewed for the IESG by Ted Hardie.

RFC Editor Note:

OLD: URI comparison is performed in respect to some particular purpose,
  and implementations with differing purposes will often be subject to
  differing design trade-offs in regards to how much effort should be
  spent in reducing aliased identifiers.

NEW:   URI comparison is performed in respect to some particular purpose,
  and protocols or implementations comparing for purposes will often be
  subject to differing design trade-offs in regards to how much effort
  should be spent in reducing aliased identifiers.

_______________________________________________
IETF-Announce mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce

-- 
Joe Gregorio        http://bitworking.org

---

From: Asbjørn Ulsberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 23:40:12 +0200

> format and publication protocol specs to follow?

I think that's a good idea, yes.

-- 
Asbjørn Ulsberg    -=|=-     http://virtuelvis.com/quark/
«He's a loathsome offensive brute, yet I can't look away»

---

From: Paul Hoffman / IMC <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 17:04:39 -0700

>format and publication protocol specs to follow?

Yes, definitely. It probably won't get its RFC number for a few 
months, but it is certainly safe for us to reference it as if it 
will. That is, it will get its RFC number before we will.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Internet Mail Consortium

---

From: Tim Bray <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 11:48:40 -0700

> format and publication protocol specs to follow?

Oh, yes please, let's do that immediately, and everyone take a moment 
to think kind thoughts about Roy Fielding, who did the huge amount of 
gruntwork required -Tim

---

From: Tim Bray <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 15:13:06 -0700

> to think kind thoughts about Roy Fielding, who did the huge amount of 

Sam asked me to say this officially, so <speaking-as-co-chair>I think 
the editors should now clean up all URI-talk in our drafts to reference 
2396bis gets and as a side-effect mark PaceUriOrItsSuccessor 
closed.</speaking-as-co-chair>

Anyone disagree? -Tim