Subject: [Ecrit] LoST open issue: Do we need a URL?

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2006 11:28:39 -0400

It is not clear that LoST really needs its own URL scheme, since it is 
unlikely to appear on web pages or other places that would necessitate 
such a mechanism.

Currently, the definition is extremely trivial and seems to impose no 
significant complexity, so I'm tempted to simply retain it under the 
"does no harm" category, but if somebody would like to speak to this 
point, please do so soon.

Henning

_______________________________________________
Ecrit mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit

---

From: Andrew Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2006 11:46:17 -0400

> point, please do so soon.

My preference is to exclude it at the moment.  There is harm in defining one 
now that might be incompatible with a future need requiring a beefier 
scheme.  But other than that, yes it is harmless.

-andy

---

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2006 10:08:14 -0700

At 11:28 AM -0400 9/5/06, Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
>It is not clear that LoST really needs its own URL scheme, since it is unlikely to appear on web pages or other places that would necessitate such a mechanism.
>
>Currently, the definition is extremely trivial and seems to impose no significant complexity, so I'm tempted to simply retain it under the "does no harm" category, but if somebody would like to speak to this point, please do so soon.

If there is no URI scheme referrals are more difficult.  I think it is worth doing
for that reason alone.  I also believe that the semantic difference between
an http URI and a lost URI (where error codes are returned, to give the trivial
example) is sufficient to warrant a URI scheme.
			
				Ted