Hannes,
thanks for the pointers....
Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo) wrote:
...
Reading through the mails again I unfortunately cannot find a strong
recommendations. It seems that reading through RFC 3205 we got confused.
Initially, the entire discussion started with LoST where we also solicited review for a URI scheme, see
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/uri-review/current/msg00601.html
I was pointed to RFC 3205 but we later decided not to define a lost URI scheme.
...
For the record, there was some discussion in the appsarea meeting in
Vancouver about updating BCP56 (RFC3205).
I think if the conclusion from reading it is that you need new URI
schemes and port numbers for anything "beyond webbrowsing", then that
definitively does not represent IETF consensus (as of today) or the
state of the art, or even recent IETF specifications (CalDAV, AtomPub,
whatnot).
Best regards, Julian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf