Re: Last Call: <draft-faltstrom-uri-10.txt> (The Uniform Resource Identi

I'm also sorry for not commenting earlier in thread.  My point was
informational, and not an issue.  However, what you describe below seems
appropriate.

Eliot


On 2/23/15 2:04 PM, Patrik Fältström wrote:
> All,
>
>
> Due to a mistake from my side, the new version I have been hacking in based 
> on comments coming back during the still open last call was posted the other 
> day. I am sorry for that and my apologies for people being confused.
>
> It was my intention "only" to describe here what I have found so far in 
> comments, so let me summarize in no specific order:
>
> - It is confusing to have a full section called "examples" and then only have 
> one example.
>
> - The registries that existed when the draft was first posted was (only) the 
> ENUM registry, while now we also have a registry for SRV prefixes, and this 
> draft can and should reference both
>
> - The example(s) given should because the draft reference a registry use 
> actual values that are registered.
>
> - As no web browser have implemented lookup for the URI RRType (as far as I 
> know), the example should not be using "homepage" as an example, but 
> something else
>
> - Minor clarifications that mostly are editorial
>
> Some of these, but not all, are already implemented in the prematurely posted 
> version -11 which should not have been posted.
>
> Once again, my apologies. Thanks to Eliot, Mark, Suzanne and Pete for helping 
> me.
>
>    Patrik
>
> > On 29 jan 2015, at 08:05, Patrik Fältström <paf(_at_)netnod(_dot_)se> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On 29 jan 2015, at 07:59, Eliot Lear <lear(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Patrik,
> > >
> > > On this one point:
> > >
> > >
> > > > On 1/28/15 9:46 AM, Patrik Fältström wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The RRType is registered and can not be changed.
> > > >
> > > > That said, what can be referred to is a "better" registry for services. 
> > > > IETF do not have a registry for services for SRV. If IETF did, then I 
> > > > would have referenced that registry. I think it is "stupid" to create a 
> > > > new registry.
> > > Stupid or not, it exists.  Go to [1] and select "Service name only".
> > > RFC 6335 updated RFC 2782 on this point[2].
> > Ok, I have been sleeping by the wheel!
> >
> > Mea culpa.
> >
> > Let me come back on this.
> >
> >   Patrik
> >
> > > Eliot
> > >
> > > [1] http://www.iana.org/form/ports-services
> > > [2] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6335

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature