Hi Matthew, Sorry for the late response.
I had a look at version -15 (and also -16), and I am ok with the changes. Thanks! Regards, Christer -----Original Message----- From: Matthew Kerwin [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 14 December 2016 01:28 To: Christer Holmberg <[email protected]>; Alexey Melnikov <[email protected]>; [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Subject: RE: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-appsawg-file-scheme-14 Hi, From: Christer Holmberg [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, 7 December 2016 16:23 > > Hi, > >>Thanks for the review, it dovetails nicely with other feedback I've >>received. >> >>Elsewhere this text has been suggested for the abstract: >> >>> This document provides a full specification of the "file" Uniform >>> Resource Identifier (URI) scheme, replacing the very brief definition >>> in Section 3.10 of RFC 1738. >> >>Does that go some way to resolve the ambiguity there? It doesn't use >>the words "update" or "obsolete" but it seems to me that it says what >>it needs to. > >I am fine with ³replace² :) > >Regards, > >Christer I've published version 15, could you please have a look and see if it addresses your questions? The pertinent changes are: * The abstract now says basically what I quoted above. I think the rewording resolves most of your original questions about what is being updated and how. * There is some text in the introduction around the exceptions to "compatible with most existing usages." Basically it points to the very loose description in RFC1738, and the gradual tightening of specs since then which "file:" otherwise avoided. There's also a pointer to Appendix A "Differences from Previous Specifications". * The acknowledgements section has been rewritten, and now has no formal callbacks to the previous RFCs or drafts. Cheers
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
