Subject: [apps-discuss] registering "feed:" and "javascript:" ?

From: Larry Masinter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 14:34:14 -0700

Did http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hoehrmann-javascript-scheme-03 get dropped?

should http://www.iana.org/assignments/uri-schemes/prov/feed be moved to permanent?

Larry

---

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 00:50:49 +0200

>Did http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hoehrmann-javascript-scheme-03 get dropped?

One relatively recent issue was that the IRI WG wanted to change the
scheme registration guidelines in ways that might affect the draft...

The draft has not really changed since -00 seven years ago, only some
wordsmithing in response to feedback. I am not eager to do anything
more for the document than sending a "publish please" mail somewhere
and doing the AUTH48 review and approval.

What I should do is reading through the last round of comments again and
see what I've not been able to address yet, compare to the document,
decide what to do with the feedback, possibly update the document, and
then try to write up a fair summary of what people have been unhappy
with in past reviews, and include that in the publication request to the
IESG (or the RFC Editor, I forget whether that is an option here), and
then demand people send very good diffs if they want editorial changes.

Now, it doesn't have to be me who does that...
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:[email-masked] · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 17:27:04 -0700

> then demand people send very good diffs if they want editorial changes.
IRI appears to be inactive now, and it seems like this WG is probably the
one whose charter is most likely to cover this space.  So it depends on
whether the IESG thinks this work ought to be processed in the IETF stream
vs. them being fine with it going through the RFC Editor.  Our docket is
presently full-ish but there are a few documents crawling toward their last
calls, so you or Larry or whoever wants to carry the torch for it could
propose APPSAWG handle it if there's sufficient interest in doing so once
those move on.

-MSK (co-chairin')