Re: Proposed amendment to language of draft-ietf-url-procedures

> I'd actually push back a bit on the "wide usage" test, because I don't
> believe that IETF should commit itself to publish bad ideas even if they
> are in wide use.  The most we should commit ourselves to doing, IMHO, is
> to avoid defining alternate meanings for URL prefixes in wide use, if
> our doing so would cause interoperability problems.

(I should have added '...for our own protocols.') 

Keith