Re: informal last call for draft-duerst-archived-at-06

Frank Ellermann wrote:
> Graham Klyne wrote:
> 
>> I think a distinction needs to be drawn here between *registration* and
>> *standardization*.
> 
> Point - that solves my first nit, X-Archived-At can be registered, but not
> with "Status: standard".  Martin's draft proposes a "Status: deprecated",
> so far that should be okay.
> 
>> I see no reason why the X-Archived-At header should not be included in
>> the provisional registry -- indeed to do so seems to me to be entirely
>> in accord with that registry's purpose.
> 
> ACK, your concept is better than my "impossible".  With a provisional entry
> and "Status: deprecated" at the same time folks are free to (ab)use this
> X-header-field for completely different purposes.  If they're smart they
> don't do this or at least wait some years, but that's another issue... :-)

:)  No argument from me.


>>> === 2nd point ===
> [...]
>>> the planned EAI experiment might still limit its scope to local parts
>>> in addresses (excluding Message-IDs).
> 
>>> Archived-At has "intended status: standards track", not "experimental".
> 
>> Responding to the last paragraph only -- I'm not sure how it relates to
>> the preceding text -- I think that the "experimentation" has been fully
>> conducted by W3C and their mailing lists using X-Archived-At, so I'm not
>> sure why one would consider "experimental" status at this time.
> 
> The intended status of the I-D is PS, "Status: standard" for Archived-At
> is perfectly okay (modulo last call + approval).  But setion 2.4 in the
> I-D obviously talks about EAI, and unlike Archived-At EAI is (1) far from
> ready for prime time, (2) experimental (when ready).
> 
> Therefore I think that section 2.4 is premature, and in essence it simply
> says "as soon as IRIs are possible message headers producers can do what
> RFC 3987 says", nothing special so far.
> 
> But at this point in the game it's IMO too early to talk about IRIs in
> message headers (Archived-At is for mail + news, not http etc.), it would
> only cause unnecessary confusion.  Software producing IRIs can as well
> produce URIs, the latter works with more clients.  Clients are always the
> most backwards part, where it takes a decade until they learn new tricks.
> 
> Clicking the "about netscape" button in my browser:  1994-1997.  A decade
> is already optimistic... :-)  Let's start with Archived-At IRIs when EAI
> is on standards track (maybe late 2008).

Ah, I see what you mean.  I hadn't appreciated you were talking about section
2.4, which I hadn't fully absorbed.  I don't have any cogent view on this, so I
should refrain from further comment.  (Except to suggest that maybe the section
could be marked as non-normative?)

#g

-- 
Graham Klyne
For email:
http://www.ninebynine.org/#Contact