RE: Last Call: draft-ietf-enum-cnam (IANA Registration for anEnumservice Calling Name Delivery (CNAM) Information and IANARegistration for URI type 'pstndata' URI type 'pstn') toProposed Standard

Don't ask us, ask the AD's we are just poor working stiffs doing what we're
told...

The new URI scheme was the path of least resistance for everyone concerned.

>  -----Original Message-----
>  From: Paul Kyzivat [mailto:[email protected]]
>  Sent: Monday, November 12, 2007 1:48 PM
>  To: Clive D.W. Feather
>  Cc: [email protected]; Hollenbeck, Scott; Jon Peterson
>  Subject: Re: [Enum] Last Call: draft-ietf-enum-cnam (IANA Registration
>  for anEnumservice Calling Name Delivery (CNAM) Information and
>  IANARegistration for URI type 'pstndata' URI type 'pstn') toProposed
>  Standard
>  
>  
>  
>  Clive D.W. Feather wrote:
>  > Hollenbeck, Scott said:
>  >>> * Why is there a need for a new URI type rather than just
>  >>> having a data:
>  >>> URI with appropriate contents?
>  >> The data: URI was the original proposal.  The reviewing AD (Jon)
>  >> mandated a change.  Apparently there is some desire within the IESG
>  to
>  >> deprecate use of the data: URI.
>  >
>  > Hmm. Can you point me at any documentation for this? [I've been
>  looking at
>  > the data: URI in other contexts.]
>  
>  Yes, I would also like info on that. What is the story?
>  
>  	Thanks,
>  	Paul
>  
>  _______________________________________________
>  enum mailing list
>  [email protected]
>  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum