# don't send mail about <URL:...> prefix here

Larry Masinter (masinter@parc.xerox.com)
Fri, 16 Sep 1994 00:09:03 PDT

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Roy T. Fielding: "Re: The <URL: Wrapper take 2"
- Previous message: Jon P. Knight: "Re: The <URL: Wrapper take 2"
- Next in thread: Michael Mealling: "Re: don't send mail about <URL:...> prefix here"
- Reply: Michael Mealling: "Re: don't send mail about <URL:...> prefix here"
- Reply: Roy T. Fielding: "LIFN draft?"

    To: uri@bunyip.com

    Subject: don't send mail about <URL:...> prefix here

    From: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>

    Message-Id: <94Sep16.000909pdt.2760@golden.parc.xerox.com>

    Date: 	Fri, 16 Sep 1994 00:09:03 PDT

As far as I can tell, the status of the URL draft is that the working
group chair (Alan Emtage) determined that there was rough consensus of
the working group (uri@bunyip.com) to proceed to ask the area director
(Erik Huizer) to forward the latest draft (sent out by me) to the
IESG, with a recommendation that it be published as a Proposed
Standard.

As part of the IESG procedure, a "last call" was issued, asking for
any last-minute comments on the draft to a mailing address given in
the "last call".

Unless the IESG directs the working group to revisit a particular
issue or revise the draft in a particular way, the latest internet
draft will become a "proposed standard".

Thus, discussing this issue on the working group mailing list
(uri@bunyip.com) is, at this point, moot.

That is:

* If you believe the document is fine as is, and requires no changes,
and should move to Proposed Standard, you needn't do anything. You
certainly don't need to assert this on uri@bunyip.com.

* If, on the other hand, you believe that the document is either
technically flawed, or doesn't actually reflect the consensus of the
group, and should not become proposed standard without some
revision, this list is ALSO not the appropriate forum; you should
respond to the 'last call' at the appropriate address given in the
last call address.

I hope you don't; I'd like to get on with it, and I'm satisfied that
the <URL:...> recommendation as written is a useful compromise, that
its place as a recommendation in the draft is appropriate, and that it
reflected the closest to "consensus" that this group can get on this
particular issue.
================================================================
In the meanwhile, I'd like to move on to revisit the other issues
before us:

relative URLs
URNs
URC requirements
LIFNs
URC specification

Does everyone have the URLs for the current drafts of these?

- Next message: Roy T. Fielding: "Re: The <URL: Wrapper take 2"
- Previous message: Jon P. Knight: "Re: The <URL: Wrapper take 2"
- Next in thread: Michael Mealling: "Re: don't send mail about <URL:...> prefix here"
- Reply: Michael Mealling: "Re: don't send mail about <URL:...> prefix here"
- Reply: Roy T. Fielding: "LIFN draft?"