Opened 8 years ago

Closed 8 years ago

#105 closed defect (wontfix)

recycle at Proposed or do not allow characters previously allowed

Reported by: masinter@… Owned by: draft-ietf-iri-3987bis@…
Priority: major Milestone:
Component: 3987bis Version:
Severity: - Keywords:
Cc: Frank, Ellermann, <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@…>


Frank Ellermann <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@…>


  • s/Disallowed or Not Recommended/Disallowed/? please, or is 3987bis intended for "proposed standard" instead of "standard"?

I don't think it is necessary to recycle at "proposed standard" in order to bring a standard into alignment with existing practice, but I think the issue needs to be discussed.

Change History (1)

comment:1 Changed 8 years ago by masinter@…

  • Resolution set to wontfix
  • Status changed from new to closed

if we make any changes to the spec to bring it in alignment with current implementations, the changes we are making may not appear to be compatible (either "forward compatible" in that old implementations accept new IRIs, or "backward compatible" in that new implementations accept old IRIs.).

Adding new allowed characters is backward compatible but not forward. Removing new characters is forward compatible but not backward.

When bringing specs into alignment with widespread current implementations depends on whether there are existing deployed implementations that will break when presented with new stuff, etc.

This judgment can be made when we're done, let's not avoid moving toward resolution with current implementations for some IETF process reasons.

Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.