# Re: On 'Internet Drafts'

Roy Fielding (fielding@beach.w3.org)
Tue, 11 Jul 1995 23:38:15 -0400

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Ronald E. Daniel: "yet another revision of the charter"
- Previous message: Leslie Daigle: "Re: revised agenda for Stockholm IETF"
- In reply to: Larry Masinter: "On 'Internet Drafts'"
- Next in thread: Keith Moore: "Re: On 'Internet Drafts'"

    Message-Id: <199507120338.XAA01225@beach.w3.org>

    To: uri@bunyip.com

    Subject: Re: On 'Internet Drafts'

    In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 10 Jul 1995 09:59:00 PDT."

                 <95Jul10.095905pdt.2762@golden.parc.xerox.com>

    Date: Tue, 11 Jul 1995 23:38:15 -0400

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

>I think we have too many "draft-ietf-uri-*" Internet drafts. I don't
>think I understood the rules. I'm still not sure I understand the
>rules, but I think the general rule is:
>
>> if it is the work of one or several individuals, it is
>> "draft-yourname-*". If this is a document that is the work of the
>> committee, and has been circulated on the list, and we have agreed
>> that you are the editor of the document and you have agreed to make
>> changes according to the consensus of the committee, then it becomes
>> "draft-ietf-uri-*".

I think that would be a good rule, but only after the charter is
revised. The problem is that such a rule only works if you can
determine first what it is the WG is working on, and assign official
editorial tasks to individuals responsible to the group's decisions.

For example, I would retitle my paper "URI Architecture" if that
were indeed a topic for specification by the WG.

>If we're intending to produce something as an RFC, then it needs to
>appear in the 'milestones' of the charter. If we're not intending to
>turn a document into an RFC (informational, standards track,
>experimental) then it probably shouldn't be a working-group document.

Yep.

>deleted:
>* draft-ietf-uri-resource-names-03.txt
>* draft-ietf-uri-urc-00.txt
>* draft-ietf-uri-urc-spec-00.txt
>* draft-ietf-uri-urn2urc-00.txt
>* draft-ietf-uri-yaurn-00.txt

Query: How should these be handled at my WG info site?
I currently have them marked as expired, but perhaps it
would be better if I made a separate page for historical
documents. Naturally, I will delete any documents that the
author(s) wish to be deleted.

>URN schemes. I think we're intending to chose one or more of these and
>then develop them in committee:
>
>* draft-ietf-uri-urn-x-dns-2-00.txt
>* draft-ietf-uri-urn-handles-00.txt
>* draft-ietf-uri-urn-path-00.txt

I personally feel that they should have the same status as URL schemes.

>Other problem cases:
>...
>* draft-ietf-uri-roy-urn-urc-00.txt
> probably shouldn't be a working group I-D in its current form. I.e.,
> the working group shouldn't be working on 'how Roy would
> implement URNs'.

I'll ask that it be removed after we have agreed on a revised charter.
[It may come back as something else, or maybe not at all.]

....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: Ronald E. Daniel: "yet another revision of the charter"
- Previous message: Leslie Daigle: "Re: revised agenda for Stockholm IETF"
- In reply to: Larry Masinter: "On 'Internet Drafts'"
- Next in thread: Keith Moore: "Re: On 'Internet Drafts'"