# Re: URI Revised charter proposal

Roy Fielding (fielding@beach.w3.org)
Tue, 11 Jul 1995 23:11:41 -0400

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Mark Madsen: "Re: no 'object architecture' in URI working group"
- Previous message: Murray Bent: "Re: no 'object architecture' in URI working group"
- In reply to: Ronald E. Daniel: "Re: URI Revised charter proposal"
- Next in thread: Mark Madsen: "Re: URI Revised charter proposal"
- Reply: Mark Madsen: "Re: URI Revised charter proposal"

    Message-Id: <199507120311.XAA01141@beach.w3.org>

    To: uri@bunyip.com

    Subject: Re: URI Revised charter proposal

    In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 06 Jul 1995 10:46:43 MDT."

                 <9507061046.ZM22028@idaknow.acl.lanl.gov>

    Date: Tue, 11 Jul 1995 23:11:41 -0400

    From: Roy Fielding <fielding@beach.w3.org>

missed this one ...

>> [Dallas IETF -- LLD]
>[...]
>> Revise the URL document (RFC 1738) and move it to the next step on the
>> standards track, taking into account the comments of the IESG
>> at the time they went to Draft Standard.
>
>Why is this last item after Dallas instead of before? Roy, what sort
>of time would you like ot put on this?

Let's see ... I'll have a version ready by August 7 ... figure
one month of yelling back and forth before its fairly stable again ...
another month for last call comments and revisions, plus a couple
weeks when I move back to Irvine ... that means ...

October 21, which is just in time for an IESG decision at Danvers.

==========
OTHER comments on the draft charter revision:

I don't think this WG should choose any one URN scheme, or any one
resolution mechanism, and certainly not any agent mechanism.
What it should do is define an extensible architecture that allows
*any* URN scheme to be developed, with *any* resolution mechanism,
such that these things can be usable when they are ready.

The main reason I put out the roy-urn-urc draft is because I obviously
failed to adequately explain why I felt that way, since the charter
milestones are presupposing that there be such a decision.
If we do not know whether or not there should be one URN, then
surely it is inappropriate to say that choosing one is a goal of the WG.
The same goes for URCs.

Naturally, the WG is free to ignore my rants and ravings on this issue,
but I felt that it was at least necessary to put them in draft form,
rather than as yet another mail message on the topic.

Re: URAs

Are they uniform? Only one agent format has been proposed, so maybe.
Do they pertain to Resources? Yes.
Are they identifiers? No.

Resource discovery is an important topic, but not one that needs
to be addressed by this WG. Should there be a WG on discovery?
Sure, but that's a separate issue.

Resource management is an issue capable of bogging down any WG,
let alone one already bogged down with its existing tasks. It should
be addressed by application developers, not standards developers.

....Roy T. Fielding Department of ICS, University of California, Irvine USA
Visiting Scholar, MIT/LCS + World-Wide Web Consortium
(fielding@w3.org) (fielding@ics.uci.edu)

- Next message: Mark Madsen: "Re: no 'object architecture' in URI working group"
- Previous message: Murray Bent: "Re: no 'object architecture' in URI working group"
- In reply to: Ronald E. Daniel: "Re: URI Revised charter proposal"
- Next in thread: Mark Madsen: "Re: URI Revised charter proposal"
- Reply: Mark Madsen: "Re: URI Revised charter proposal"