The "about" URI Scheme
draft-ietf-appsawg-about-uri-scheme-07
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2012-06-13
|
07 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2012-06-13
|
07 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from Waiting on Authors |
2012-06-12
|
07 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2012-06-12
|
07 | Amy Vezza | State changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2012-06-11
|
07 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2012-06-11
|
07 | Amy Vezza | State changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent |
2012-06-11
|
07 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2012-06-11
|
07 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2012-06-11
|
07 | Amy Vezza | Ballot approval text was generated |
2012-06-08
|
07 | Barry Leiba | State changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed |
2012-06-07
|
07 | Barry Leiba | Ballot writeup was changed |
2012-06-07
|
07 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation |
2012-06-07
|
07 | S Moonesamy | New version available: draft-ietf-appsawg-about-uri-scheme-07.txt |
2012-06-06
|
06 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise |
2012-06-06
|
06 | Ralph Droms | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ralph Droms |
2012-06-06
|
06 | Gonzalo Camarillo | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Gonzalo Camarillo |
2012-06-05
|
06 | Sean Turner | [Ballot comment] I have no objection to the publication of this document as an Informational RFC. |
2012-06-05
|
06 | Sean Turner | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Sean Turner has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2012-06-05
|
06 | Robert Sparks | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Robert Sparks |
2012-06-05
|
06 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Russ Housley |
2012-06-05
|
06 | Pete Resnick | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Pete Resnick has been changed to Yes from Discuss |
2012-06-05
|
06 | Barry Leiba | Intended Status changed to Informational from Proposed Standard |
2012-06-04
|
06 | Pete Resnick | [Ballot discuss] [Will switch to a Yes once resolved] The document is still on the agenda for Proposed Standard even though the draft itself says … [Ballot discuss] [Will switch to a Yes once resolved] The document is still on the agenda for Proposed Standard even though the draft itself says "Informational". Please fix. |
2012-06-04
|
06 | Pete Resnick | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Pete Resnick |
2012-06-04
|
06 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot comment] The FCFS registration scheme could lead to anyone registering an about-token that's in current use in a browser. Why isn't expert review more … [Ballot comment] The FCFS registration scheme could lead to anyone registering an about-token that's in current use in a browser. Why isn't expert review more suitable here to protect against such abuse? For example, nothing here prevents me from registering about:config, which is used by >1 browser. I don't get why that is not a problem. (This is almost a discuss btw, I'd really like to see a response if possible before the telechat.) Why does about-token "correspond" to hier-part from 3986? What would "about://example.com/foo/bar" mean? I'd have thought that omitting the authority would be correct for this scheme - why am I wrong? |
2012-06-04
|
06 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell |
2012-06-04
|
06 | Ron Bonica | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ronald Bonica |
2012-06-04
|
06 | Martin Stiemerling | [Ballot comment] no objection if this draft is really going for informational (as listed in the draft) and not as Standards Track as listed in … [Ballot comment] no objection if this draft is really going for informational (as listed in the draft) and not as Standards Track as listed in the datatracker. |
2012-06-04
|
06 | Martin Stiemerling | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling |
2012-06-03
|
06 | S Moonesamy | New version available: draft-ietf-appsawg-about-uri-scheme-06.txt |
2012-06-03
|
05 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot comment] I have no objection to the publication of this document as an Informaitonal RFC. Following on from the transition to Informational (for which, … [Ballot comment] I have no objection to the publication of this document as an Informaitonal RFC. Following on from the transition to Informational (for which, thanks), you might consider s/specifies/describes/ (But this is a *very* unimportant comment!) |
2012-06-03
|
05 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Adrian Farrel |
2012-06-01
|
05 | Barry Leiba | Removed as returning item on telechat |
2012-05-29
|
05 | Barry Leiba | State changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::AD Followup |
2012-05-29
|
05 | Barry Leiba | Ballot writeup was changed |
2012-05-29
|
05 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2012-05-29
|
05 | S Moonesamy | New version available: draft-ietf-appsawg-about-uri-scheme-05.txt |
2012-05-24
|
04 | Sean Turner | [Ballot discuss] What interoperability concern is this document addressing? If it's only used internally why do need to specify it at all? This is a … [Ballot discuss] What interoperability concern is this document addressing? If it's only used internally why do need to specify it at all? This is a round about way of asking why this needs to be on the standards track? Seems like informational would be more suitable. |
2012-05-24
|
04 | Sean Turner | Ballot discuss text updated for Sean Turner |
2012-05-24
|
04 | Sean Turner | [Ballot discuss] What interoperability concern is this document addressing? If it's only used internally why do need to specify it at all? This is a … [Ballot discuss] What interoperability concern is this document addressing? If it's only used internally why do need to specify it at all? This is a round about way of asking why this needs to be on the standards track? Seems like informational would work just fine. |
2012-05-24
|
04 | Sean Turner | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Sean Turner |
2012-05-23
|
04 | Stewart Bryant | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stewart Bryant |
2012-05-17
|
04 | Barry Leiba | Telechat date has been changed to 2012-06-07 from 2012-05-24 |
2012-05-16
|
04 | Brian Haberman | [Ballot comment] Just a non-blocking comment that can be resolved easily... The Acknowledgments section appears to be incomplete. The first sentence looks fragmented, maybe an … [Ballot comment] Just a non-blocking comment that can be resolved easily... The Acknowledgments section appears to be incomplete. The first sentence looks fragmented, maybe an editing mistake? |
2012-05-16
|
04 | Brian Haberman | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Haberman |
2012-05-04
|
04 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Warren Kumari. |
2012-05-03
|
04 | Barry Leiba | Removed as returning item on telechat |
2012-05-03
|
04 | Barry Leiba | Telechat date has been changed to 2012-05-24 from 2012-05-10 |
2012-05-03
|
04 | Barry Leiba | Not ready for IESG Evaluation yet... We need to adjust based on last call comments. |
2012-05-03
|
04 | Barry Leiba | State changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::Revised ID Needed from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead |
2012-05-02
|
04 | Wesley Eddy | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Wesley Eddy |
2012-05-02
|
04 | (System) | State changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call |
2012-04-30
|
04 | Pearl Liang | IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-appsawg-about-uri-scheme-04.txt and has the following comments: IANA has questions about one of the actions requested in this document. IANA understands that, upon … IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-appsawg-about-uri-scheme-04.txt and has the following comments: IANA has questions about one of the actions requested in this document. IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are two actions IANA must complete. First, in the Permanent URI Schemes registry located at: http://www.iana.org/assignments/uri-schemes.html a new URI scheme will be registered as follows: URI Scheme: about IANA Question --> What should be used as the "Description" text for this URI? Description: Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] IANA Question --> URI Schema require expert review as per RFC 4395. Has expert review been provided for the "about" schema? Second, ICANN will create a new registry under the matrix item called "Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) Schemes" - the new registry will be called "about URI Special Purpose Tokens" The registration procedures for this registry are "First Come First Served", described in RFC 5226 [RFC5226], with supporting documentation meeting the requirements below. The registrant of the token ought to provide the following registration template, which will be made available in the new IANA registry: 1) Registered Token: The desired special-purpose token to be used in "about" URIs. 2) Intended usage: A short description of how "about" URIs with the registered token must be handled; especially, to what resource they are to resolve. 3) Handling query component: Describe any requirements for handling query components in "about" URIs that contain the registered token. 4) Contact/Change controller: An individual or an organization that (1) should be contacted for more details, and (2) is authorized to change the registration. 5) Specification. A permanent reference to a specification that can be used to create a compliant, interoperable implementation of the registered "about" URI. IANA understands that these are the only actions required upon approval of this document. |
2012-04-22
|
04 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Warren Kumari |
2012-04-22
|
04 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Warren Kumari |
2012-04-19
|
04 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Richard Barnes |
2012-04-19
|
04 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Richard Barnes |
2012-04-18
|
04 | Cindy Morgan | Last call sent |
2012-04-18
|
04 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested The following Last Call Announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: … State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested The following Last Call Announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Last Call: (The "about" URI Scheme) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the Applications Area Working Group WG (appsawg) to consider the following document: - 'The "about" URI Scheme' as a Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2012-05-02. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract This document specifies the "about" URI scheme, which is widely used by web browsers and some other applications to designate access to their internal resources, such as settings, application information, hidden built-in functionality, and so on. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-appsawg-about-uri-scheme/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-appsawg-about-uri-scheme/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2012-04-18
|
04 | Barry Leiba | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2012-05-10 |
2012-04-18
|
04 | Barry Leiba | The PROTO writeup: (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper … The PROTO writeup: (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? The requested RFC is Standards Track (Proposed Standard ). There are some concerns whether we can register a URI in the Permanent registry if the document status is Informational. If this is not a problem, this document can be informational. On the other hand, Tom Petch pointed out that if this document is for STD, it should also mention other browsers as examples instead of Opera only. (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract or introduction. This document specifies the "about" URI scheme, that is widely used by Web browsers and some other applications to designate access to their internal resources. Working Group Summary Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? There was a little controversial discussion about IANA registration policy in choosing between FCFS and Specification Required. There were some who wanted to specify more about-tokens and their details, but consensus came down to being minimal. This document got the reasonable rough consensus for FCFS. Document Quality Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted? This document is in good shape. There are multiple existing implementations of about: URIs. Personnel Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director? Jiankang Yao is the Document Shepherd. Barry Leiba is the Responsible Area Director. (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. I have reviewed the latest version of the draft, and I believe that this document is ready to go. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No. (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. No. (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. No. (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why. Yes. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No IPR disclosure was filed on this document. (9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? I believe the document has reached rough consensus in the WG. There has been no dissent in the WGLC. (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) No threat of appeal was indicated. (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Yes, I have checked it. No nits are found. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. This document is nothing about MIBs at all. This document was posted to the uri-review list and received no comments, and that the URI expert (Graham Klyne) reviewed and commented on the document in the working group. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Yes. (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion? No. (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. No. (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary. No. (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226). IANA Considerations section is clear and specifies the correct registries. IANA is asked to register the "about" URI scheme in the "URI Schemes" registry; IANA is asked to set up a new registry entitled "'about' URI Special Purpose Tokens" . The registration policy chosen, First Come First Served, is appropriate. (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. The document creates a new registry for "'about' URI Special Purpose Tokens", but its registration policy is FCFS, and does not need an Expert Reviewer. The registry is defined as a table and a registration template. The responsible AD has checked with IANA, and they will decide on the presentation of the registry, working with the authors and AD as needed. (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc. Validation is correct. |
2012-04-18
|
04 | Barry Leiba | Last call was requested |
2012-04-18
|
04 | Barry Leiba | Last call announcement was generated |
2012-04-18
|
04 | Barry Leiba | State changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation |
2012-04-18
|
04 | Barry Leiba | Ballot has been issued |
2012-04-18
|
04 | Barry Leiba | Ballot approval text was generated |
2012-04-18
|
04 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
2012-04-18
|
04 | Barry Leiba | Ballot writeup was changed |
2012-04-18
|
04 | Barry Leiba | Created "Approve" ballot |
2012-04-18
|
04 | Barry Leiba | Ballot writeup was generated |
2012-04-18
|
04 | Barry Leiba | Changed protocol writeup |
2012-04-18
|
04 | Barry Leiba | Changed protocol writeup |
2012-03-29
|
04 | Barry Leiba | State changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2012-03-29
|
04 | Cindy Morgan | ------------------------------------------------------------------- (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of … ------------------------------------------------------------------- (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? The requested RFC is Standards Track (Proposed Standard ). There are some concerns whether we can register a URI in the Permanent registry if the document status is Informational. If this is not a problem, this document can be informational. On the other hand, Tom Petch pointed out that if this document is for STD, it should also mention other browsers as examples instead of Opera only. (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract or introduction. This document specifies the "about" URI scheme, that is widely used by Web browsers and some other applications to designate access to their internal resources. Working Group Summary Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? There was a little controversial discussion about IANA registration policy in choosing between FCFS and Specification Required. There were some who wanted to specify more about-tokens and their details, but consensus came down to being minimal. This document got the reasonable rough consensus for FCFS. Document Quality Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted? This document is in good shape. There are multiple existing implementations of about: URIs. Personnel Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director? Jiankang Yao is the Document Shepherd. Barry Leiba will be the Responsible Area Director. (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. I have reviewed the latest version of the draft, and I believe that this document is ready to go. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No. (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. No. (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. No. (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why. Yes. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No IPR disclosure was filed on this document. (9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? I believe the document has reached rough consensus in the WG. There has been no dissent in the WGLC. (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) No threat of appeal was indicated. (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Yes, I have checked it. No nits are found. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. This document is nothing about MIBs at all. This document was posted to the uri-review list and received no comments, and that the URI expert (Graham Klyne) reviewed and commented on the document in the working group. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Yes. (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion? No. (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. No. (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary. No. (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226). IANA Considerations section is clear and specifies the correct registries. IANA is asked to register the "about" URI scheme in the "URI Schemes" registry; IANA is asked to set up a new registry entitled "'about' URI Special Purpose Tokens" . The registration policy chosen, First Come First Served, is appropriate. (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. The document creates a new registry for "'about' URI Special Purpose Tokens", but its registration policy is FCFS, and does not need an Expert Reviewer. (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc. Validation is correct. ---------------------------------------- |
2012-03-29
|
04 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to Publication Requested from AD is watching::AD Followup |
2012-03-29
|
04 | Cindy Morgan | Note added 'Jiankang Yao (yaojk@cnnic.cn) is the Document Shepherd.' |
2012-03-29
|
04 | Cindy Morgan | State Change Notice email list changed to appsawg-chairs@tools.ietf.org, draft-ietf-appsawg-about-uri-scheme@tools.ietf.org, yaojk@cnnic.cn from appsawg-chairs@tools.ietf.org, draft-ietf-appsawg-about-uri-scheme@tools.ietf.org |
2012-03-29
|
04 | Cindy Morgan | Responsible AD changed to Barry Leiba from Pete Resnick |
2012-03-28
|
04 | Murray Kucherawy | IETF state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead |
2012-03-28
|
04 | Barry Leiba | Changed protocol writeup |
2012-03-26
|
04 | Murray Kucherawy | Jiankang has requested publication. |
2012-03-26
|
04 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2012-03-26
|
04 | Cindy Morgan | New version available: draft-ietf-appsawg-about-uri-scheme-04.txt |
2012-03-21
|
03 | Murray Kucherawy | IETF state changed to Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead from In WG Last Call |
2012-03-21
|
03 | Murray Kucherawy | Annotation tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC set. |
2012-03-05
|
03 | Barry Leiba | IETF state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2012-03-05
|
03 | Murray Kucherawy | WGLC completed; Barry requested revision after some WGLC comments. |
2012-03-05
|
03 | Barry Leiba | The WGLC will end on March 20, 2012 at 1:00 UTC. |
2012-03-05
|
03 | Barry Leiba | Changed shepherd to Jiankang Yao |
2012-03-03
|
03 | Mykyta Yevstifeyev | New version available: draft-ietf-appsawg-about-uri-scheme-03.txt |
2012-03-03
|
02 | Mykyta Yevstifeyev | New version available: draft-ietf-appsawg-about-uri-scheme-02.txt |
2012-02-04
|
01 | Pete Resnick | Draft added in state AD is watching |
2012-02-04
|
01 | Pete Resnick | Earlier history may be found in the Comment Log for draft-holsten-about-uri-scheme |
2011-12-09
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-appsawg-about-uri-scheme-01.txt |
2011-10-17
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-appsawg-about-uri-scheme-00.txt |