ecrit@ietf.org
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [Ecrit] [Fwd: Re: [Uri-review] IETF ECRIT Working Group: LoST URI Sc

Subject: Re: [Ecrit] [Fwd: Re: [Uri-review] IETF ECRIT Working Group: LoST URI Scheme --- Review Needed]
From: Andrew Newton
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 21:47:42 -0500

On Feb 1, 2007, at 6:16 PM, Ted Hardie wrote:

I disagree, as I think we need that level of indirection now.  At minimum, we would

want to do a provisional, to grab what we think we need (but allow for change).

I've replied to Mark on the uri-review list (reproduced below). 


We can still use U-NAPTR without a URI scheme.  There's nothing in U-NAPTR that requires one.  Of course, I do agree that reserving the lost: URI scheme name is important.

-andy
_______________________________________________
Ecrit mailing list
Ecrit@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>