Hi, all: I'm still digging out from having been away for several weeks, plus fires to put out at $dayjob, but I'd like to call your attention to a call for consensus on the art (application area) mailing list on BCP 190. The original discussion was driven by Adam's DISCUSS on 6962-bis, and interested parties really ought to weigh in on this.
Melinda -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [art] Call for Consensus: Re: On BCP 190 Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2019 15:15:14 -0500 From: Adam Roach <[email protected]> To: Mark Nottingham <[email protected]>, Jacob Hoffman-Andrews <[email protected]> CC: ART Area <[email protected]>, Devon O'Brien <[email protected]> For the purposes of clearing my discuss, I intend to read the responses to Mark's message below as a reflection of consensus from the community. If you have thoughts on the topic, please weigh in on the ART-area mailing list no later than Friday, August 16th. People who have participated in the discussion in TRANS are very much welcome to re-express their opinions in this thread. I'm also hoping that we get some input from other participants -- even if it's something as simple as "this sounds good to me" -- to make sure all relevant perspectives are taken into account. Thanks! /a On 8/2/19 1:55 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote: > It sounds like you (collectively) want an exception in BCP190 still, correct? > > If so, I think we just need to craft some language about that for inclusion > in the spec; I'd imagine it need only be a sentence or two about it. Then the > AD(s) need to convince themselves that it reflects consensus. > > The underlying issue is the text in 2.3 of BCP190; I think the emerging > consensus is that it's too strict, in that it can be read to preclude using a > prefix approach with a MUST NOT, when in fact the potential harm to other > applications / the Web overall is pretty small. > > Does anyone disagree with that? > > Cheers, > > >> On 31 Jul 2019, at 2:10 pm, Jacob Hoffman-Andrews <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 11:26 PM Larry Masinter <[email protected]> wrote: >> The use of / in the path of URLs was supposed to >> >> be restricted to hierarchical data, and yet CT doesn’t >> do that. >> >> http://masinter.blogspot.com/2019/05/on-nature-of-hierarchical-urls.html >> >> >> CT and all prefix-using APIs do that, with a single level hierarchy. The >> domain owner specifies a prefix, ending with a "/". All of the URLs that are >> part of the API follow that prefix - they are subordinate in the hierarchy. >> >> Coming back to the main point: What remains in order to find consensus on >> this issue? >> >> Thanks, >> Jacob > -- > Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/ > > _______________________________________________ > art mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/art _______________________________________________ art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/art _______________________________________________ Trans mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
