NED+mta-filters(_at_)mauve(_dot_)mrochek(_dot_)com wrote:
On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 3:03 PM, Cyrus Daboo <cyrus(_at_)daboo(_dot_)name> wrote:
Works for me.
Great. I'd like to hear assent from Alexey and Ned before I make the
changes. If they agree, I'll put it in and submit an -08 version.
My main concern here is that the identifier be short and comprehensible, and
this seems to qualify. I really don't care what punctuation surrounds it as
long as it's simple, and this proposal works in that regard as well.
I am Ok with it as well.
And while I'm happy we can finesse this particular case by using some syntax
and semantic tricks, I have to point out that some of the assertions made in
reviewing the original URL scheme proposal were quite simply wrong, and it's
exactly the sort of mistake the IETF makes on a depressingly regular basis.
In particular, the original response to this registration stated that:
The use and deployment of new URI schemes in the Internet infrastructure is
costly
This is of course true in the sense that widespread deployment in mutiple
protocols and applications is costly. But that's not what we were trying to do
and the assumption that this is what everyone who registers a URI scheme (or
media type or charset or whatever) is doing is nonsensical.
+1.
We were trying to define a mechanism for use in a single context in a single
protocol. If other protocols decided the mechanism made sufficient sense to
adopt, great, but if not that's fine too. Identifiers are cheap.
So again, being able to finesse the issue here is good. But sooner or later
we're going to have to face up to the fact that our, I guess I'd call it
registration philosophy, is increasingly at odds with how protocols are
actually defined and used.
Agreed.
_______________________________________________
sieve mailing list
sieve(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sieve