Subject: [Ltru] FW: the URLs you asked for

From: "Scott Hollenbeck" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 07:19:31 -0500

This is the final element of the appeal submitted by Jefsey Morfin.  I am
forwarding this part of his appeal to the LTRU mailing list with his
permission to create a public record.

Scott Hollenbeck
LTRU Area Advisor

  _____  

From: Jefsey Morfin [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 10:24 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: the URLs you asked for

Dear Scott,
I rush this for you. It documents clearly that two proposition have received
tracker numbers and discussed, not the last one wich is therefore still open
and undocumented in
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ltru/current/msg03807.html. 
I add some of the points (IRI, encryption) on this proposition which have
obviously never been discussed by WG-ltru.

1. "x-" private use zone is modified - tracker # 1072
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ltru/current/msg03053.html
I ask Randy:
1. you warranty these scheme will prevent conflicts
2. will support a simple format such as
x-schemes:name.subname:address:date-etc.
3. will address the right of billions of users to document the way they want
20.000 languages in thousands of regions, the languages and scripting
variations they may chose (private use is for that).
If you can seriously document this I will drop my demand.

2. "0-" is an absolute escape sequence quitting the gracefully the domain of
RFC 3066 - tracker # 1092
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ltru/current/msg03101.html
For completeness, I've added this to the tracker.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
> http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ltru/current/msg03099.html
> requests that the proposal to use 0- as an escape, introduced
> in message
> http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ltru/current/msg03061.html
> be given a distinct issue number.
> Note that the resolution of other issues, e.g., #1072
> subsumes this issue and precludes the suggested solution.
> consequently, this issue is marked as "rejected"

This reject of this obviously different proposition is disputed further on.

3. "0-" is not an absolute escape. It is an introduction to user space ABNF
by an exsting RFC - no tracker on this accepted agreement.
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ltru/current/msg03242.html
Addison Philips:
-I oppose the last call suggestion to put in text reserving the digit 0 to
introduce malformed tags. 
JFC:
Agreed. The "0-" is to escape the Draft ABNF and to permit to introduce
"better schemes", like the one you introduced in the past. May be will you
be kind enough to give the reference. I see we agree now: malformed tags are
to be before "0-" and tags after "0-", MUST be correctly informed tags,
following the K/H RFC. 

I note that during the IESG Last Call:
- we have had an exchange on this new non tracked and never addressed
problem of the conflict between RFC 3066 bis and RGC 4151.
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37090.html
I note that _you_ have not concluded given a reponse and that RFC 3066 bis
text today does not comment the complemetarity or the conflict with RFC
4151. Both are authored by members of the W3C acting privately. As AFRAC my
intent is to write the W3C and the IETF (now in charge through) to ask a
clarification on the solution they truly W3C supports, copy to all the
interested parties.

- http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37285.html
review my positions evolution and the lack of information of Peter
Constable. In this I say:
"I then came to the conclusion that using the present Draft as a default non
exclusive solution, and some reserved numeric "singleton" as the hooks for
URI-tags was preserving the work made by the WG, while addressing the needs
of the rest of the world, avoiding an unnecessary conflict."
"The real solution is IRI-tags we will document as soon as the URI-tags RFC
is published. But that will create a deployment conflict with your
application, due to your sponsors. No one needs that."

None of these positions have been discussed by the WG. They obviously
greatly influence the filtering since an URI/IRI-tag can present the
information discussed by the WG in different, possibly conflicting ways, or
simply relate to and (extended) langtag.

This debate is certainly not closed and will reopen with the IRI-tag Draft.
Addressing it now would be advisable:

- http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37262.html
rises a new point of importantce: encrypted format. 
<quote>
This means that the legitimate URI tag:
"tags:x-tags.org:constable.english.x-tag.org" must be accommodated into the
format "x-xxxxxxxx-xxxxxxxx-xxxxxxxx-etc." instead of
"0-x-tags.org:constable.english.x-tag.org"

This can only lead to a confusing deprecation of the RFC 3066bis which will
be replaced by a generalised IRI-tags solution. The solution I propose
consists only in accepting that what the Draft would call "specialised
subtags" have a size limited to the tag length - 2, and an URI-tag charset.

NB. Since "x-" was used in RFC 3066 and it has been pointed to me that a
specific privateuse (in a VPN for example) could be needed, we selected "0-"
for an open format. Actually we suggest "1-" for an encrypted format. No
work has been yet carried on this. 
</quote>

All the best.
jfc

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

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 14:03:08 +0100

Scott Hollenbeck wrote:

> I am forwarding this part of his appeal to the LTRU mailing
> list with his permission to create a public record.

Do you expect "us" (or me) to do anything with it, e.g. find
the threads where the "0-" idea was discussed, and how any
character that's neither letter nor digit could be used to
introduce some kind of non-3066 / non-3066bis "tags" ?

Similar threads where using pieces of eight B64 characters
to encode anything as x-base64ba-se64base-etc were discussed.

                            Bye, Frank

---

From: "Scott Hollenbeck" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 08:26:53 -0500

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Frank Ellermann [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2005 8:03 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [Ltru] Re: FW: the URLs you asked for
> 
> Scott Hollenbeck wrote:
> 

No, I'm not asking anyone to do anything.  What I'm doing is documenting a
process action that may or may not have an impact on the work of the group.
My decision can be appealed, and if that happens I want to be sure that the
information I am reviewing is available to those who might have to review my
decision in the future.

-Scott-

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 15:15:08 +0100

Scott Hollenbeck wrote:
 
> documenting a process action

JFTR, got it.  Works rather smooth from my POV.  Only
the BCP vs. standards track issue was a bit rough, it
never occured to me that it also affects the matching
draft resulting in one BCP with two RfCs.  Bye, Frank