Message-Id: <9307070434.AA08119@mocha.bunyip.com>
To: "John A. Kunze" <jak@violet.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Re: where are we now with UR*?
In-Reply-To: Your message of Tue, 06 Jul 1993 19:04:22 -0700.
<9307070204.AA19824@violet.berkeley.edu>
Date: Wed, 07 Jul 1993 00:34:37 -0400
From: John Curran <jcurran@nic.near.net>
] From: "John A. Kunze" <jak@violet.berkeley.edu>
] Subject: where are we now with UR*?
] Date: Tue, 6 Jul 93 19:04:22 -0700
]
] In trying to figure out where we are now with UR*'s, I'd guess most
] of us feel that keeping up with the volume and quality of the UR*
] discussion these past few months has been like running a marathon.
Definitely the case. (Multiply this effort by 5 to reflect the
workload from a few other working groups, and it's surprising we
don't need warning labels on IETF registration forms...)
] I'd like to know what people think is a productive way to proceed from
] here. Would it be useful to submit to the IETF working group meeting
] in Amsterdam some overview papers that collect, distill, and organize
] important parts of the recent discussion (whether the authors can
] attend or not)? I know this is a bit late to start, but I think it
] will be very challenging to conduct the working group without them.
Hmm. At this point, I would dread seeing architecture papers,
whether new or dredged up from the past. I would be really
interested in seeing concrete proposals for enchancements to the
the URL specification (such as a paper on why URL's do/don't need
format identifiers, for example). I think that there are some distinct
areas of contention, and would prefer seeing this "small" topics
resolved individually.
Regretfully, I will not make it to IETF... I have been waylaid by a
library conference scheduled far in advance. I am sure that the
discussion will still be as exciting as always. :-)
/John