# Re: generic IESG comments

Erik Huizer (Erik.Huizer@surfnet.nl)
Fri, 04 Nov 1994 17:05:27 +0100

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Dave Crocker: "Re: generic IESG comments"
- Previous message: IESG Secretary: "Protocol Action: URL to Proposed and IRL- and URN-Reqs to Informational"
- In reply to: Dave Crocker: "Re: generic IESG comments"
- Next in thread: Dave Crocker: "Re: generic IESG comments"

    Message-Id: <9411041605.AA08728@mocha.bunyip.com>

    To: dcrocker@mordor.stanford.edu (Dave Crocker)

    Subject: Re: generic IESG comments

    In-Reply-To: Your message of Fri, 04 Nov 1994 07:47:21 -0800.             <v03000504aae0068742f3@[128.102.17.23]>

    Date: Fri, 04 Nov 1994 17:05:27 +0100

    From: "Erik Huizer (SURFnet BV)" <Erik.Huizer@surfnet.nl>

==> From: Dave Crocker

> Let's say that there has been little or no progress in solving these
> requirements in the next 6 months, and that the base URL specification has
> proved just fine in describing current practise. Does that mean that the
> URL spec will not be advanced? I don't understand how to fit this scenario
> in accepted IETF practise.

If the URL is broadly accepted and implemented, that would according to IETF
practice make it clearly eligible for Draft Standard. At the same time that
would clearly impose upon the URI WG to solve the scaling problem in the URN
spec. And in good IETF practice we'll deal with that when we come to that :-)

Erik

- Next message: Dave Crocker: "Re: generic IESG comments"
- Previous message: IESG Secretary: "Protocol Action: URL to Proposed and IRL- and URN-Reqs to Informational"
- In reply to: Dave Crocker: "Re: generic IESG comments"
- Next in thread: Dave Crocker: "Re: generic IESG comments"