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

Then what do you suggest to provide collision management, identification and
interoperability in URL schemes?  I'd be thrilled if you have a viable
alternative to offer.  But a lot of very intelligent folks have discussed
this matter for a long time, and this is what they came up with.  I'd be
delighted if we did not need process around this, and these matters could
somehow "just work out".  But the consensus is that this just is not the
case, at least not today.  

If you feel you have a viable alternative, that would prevent namespace
collision, encourage development of interoperable standards, and provide
sensible management of this highly visible namespace -- I'm all ears.  

Ian King <[email protected]>
Speech Product Group/Intelligent Interface Technologies
MICROSOFT CORPORATION

-----Original Message-----
From: Masataka Ohta [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Sunday, September 12, 1999 2:26 AM
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; Ian King;
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]
Subject: Re: Proposed amendment to language of draft-ietf-url-procedures


Keith;

> > Are you saying that IETF is infallible and has never published
> > any bad ideas of its own?
> 
> of course not.  but just because IETF can make its own mistakes, 
> doesn't mean it should lend its credibility to others' mistakes.

OK. So, it's better if IETF is involved in less technical judgements.

No informational nor standard track RFCs should be required for
mere URL names.

					'¾"c@¹F
					[email protected]