Subject: Ping

From: Ian King <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 17:13:23 -0800

As I'm sure you're aware, we do not have a meeting in Minneapolis; however,
we do have a draft out there, <draft-ietf-urlreg-procedures-05.txt>.  I've
seen no public discussion of it -- is everyone satisfied with this?  (The
guidelines draft has already been last-called, but it is dependent upon the
procedures draft, due to internal references.)  
While you're thinking about this, please consider the draft I sent out
yesterday on the vnd.* URL scheme tree.  It's very deliberately based on the
procedures draft, as an example of how alternative trees can be structured
and specified.  I don't consider it a product of this Working Group, but a
"byproduct" of our work; however, Keith Moore asked that the group review it
before it goes on to BCP.  I'll be publishing this with the I-D
administrator tomorrow.  
Thanks, and I hope to see you in Minneapolis.  -- Ian
-----------------------------------------------
Ian King <[email-masked]>
Internet Bill Delivery & Payment
MICROSOFT CORPORATION

---

From: "Craig A. Finseth" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 15:18:34 -0600 (CST)

I'm speaking for myself and not the group as a whole, but I'm not sure
that _anyone_ is satisfied with it.  My recollection is that after it
was last revised, I asked a number of questions (so, how does one get
an OID?  is the process cheap and easy?  etc.) and that there were no
good answers to these questions.  Also, the properties that some
people had thought best about it appeared to vanish upon closer
examination.

Again, speaking for myself, I don't see myself using any number-based
scheme.

I like it much better.  However, I'd personally prefer the re-use of
an existing identifier (e.g., a DNS string) rather than invent a whole
new one.  Each such identifier incurs a substantial overhead to track
and keep current.  Where's the advantage to not using it (and existing
identifier) that offsets the extra overhead?

Craig

---

From: Masataka Ohta <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 99 6:26:05 JST

Craig;

> Again, speaking for myself, I don't see myself using any number-based

Why do we have to bother?

The reality is that people use new URL names without bothering
to register them to IANA.

IETF has lost the control because it tried to make the registration
restrictive.

							Masataka Ohta

---

From: "Craig A. Finseth" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 15:54:35 -0600 (CST)

Because there are a few of us who do actually try to follow the rules...?

Craig

---

From: Masataka Ohta <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 99 7:58:30 JST

> Because there are a few of us who do actually try to follow the rules...?

There was a chance to guarantee uniqueness with unrestricted registrations.

However, the current reality is that there are conflicting names. The
current rule of the reality is that anyone can use any name.

People trying to create new rules are ignored, even though they
declare they observe their own rules.

							Masataka Ohta