Re: [apps-discuss] Retroactive application of draft-ietf-appsawg-uri-scheme-reg - comprehensive review

[Graham Klyne <[e-mail]>]

On 10/04/2015 05:42, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>>
>> On Apr 9, 2015, at 8:20 PM, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> What does it mean to make an HTTP request for, say, a SIP URI?
>
> What does it mean to make a Web request for a SIP URI? It doesn't have to be using HTTP. If you can define what it means for SIP, then it can be represented via HTTP as well. If not, then the attempt will fail. Nevertheless, the attempt will exclude the fragment because that information is reserved for client-side processing (if any).
>
> If such a URI is never used in that fashion, then no semantics are assumed for the fragment. This does not mean a scheme like sip can redefine or disallow fragments, since it doesn't control how its identifiers might be used.
>

My understanding is that a request to an HTTP server may convey a SIP 
request-URI, and it's up to the configuration of the receiving (gateway?) server 
what it does with it.

(Was it not once common to issue ftp: requests through HTTP in this way?)

I believe that the HTTP prohibition on including a fragment identifier would 
still apply here.

#g
--