Re: [apps-discuss] draft-ietf-iri-comparison

"Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp> Thu, 22 January 2015 10:58 UTC

Return-Path: <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4BB11AC447 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Jan 2015 02:58:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.799
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.799 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, J_CHICKENPOX_15=0.6, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id v1PANmLokwwK for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Jan 2015 02:58:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from scintmta01-14.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp (scintmta01-14.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp [133.2.253.64]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB7E41AC410 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Jan 2015 02:58:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from scmeg01-14.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp (scmse.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp [133.2.253.15]) by scintmta01-14.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F15132E52B; Thu, 22 Jan 2015 19:57:40 +0900 (JST)
Received: from itmail2.it.aoyama.ac.jp (unknown [133.2.206.134]) by scmeg01-14.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp with smtp id 6681_4f01_c687b32a_1f56_4a98_bdd9_f98877f3ec3e; Thu, 22 Jan 2015 19:57:39 +0900
Received: from [133.2.210.64] (unknown [133.2.210.64]) by itmail2.it.aoyama.ac.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28B20BF4C5; Thu, 22 Jan 2015 19:57:39 +0900 (JST)
Message-ID: <54C0D7A2.6040208@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 19:57:38 +0900
From: "\"Martin J. Dürst\"" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Organization: Aoyama Gakuin University
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "t.petch" <ietfc@btconnect.com>, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
References: <54B18B61.8010308@seantek.com> <54B19435.8070401@intertwingly.net> <54B1B211.3050807@seantek.com> <54B1B682.3070609@intertwingly.net> <012001d02d91$6ec42300$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <54B2781C.4040505@intertwingly.net> <018e01d02dc6$1d03b0a0$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <54B2CC75.5080900@intertwingly.net> <54B79930.3070009@ninebynine.org> <54B7AEC2.9010109@intertwingly.net> <20150116033032.GD2350@localhost> <DM2PR0201MB096082B3915B85F60EDB617DC34F0@DM2PR0201MB0960.namprd02.prod.outlook.com> <01 5c01d0362f$1f6f6020$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
In-Reply-To: <015c01d0362f$1f6f6020$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/apps-discuss/0PkNI5OEUgre9u3UVJotPBqhTHQ>
Cc: apps-discuss@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] draft-ietf-iri-comparison
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 10:58:27 -0000

Hello Tom,

On 2015/01/22 19:19, t.petch wrote:
> Larry
>
> I notice that this (expired) I-D updates RFC3986 which seems germane to
> recent discussions on this list.  Reading it, I can see why it might
> update RFC3987 or 3987bis but cannot see where it updates RFC3986.  What
> am I missing?

First, it says "3986 (if approved)", so this was conditional (of course).

Second, there's the following sentence in the introduction, which may be 
enough of an explanation:

    As every URI is also an IRI, the comparison and canonicalization
    methods also apply to URIs.

Third, I think that for this topic, 10 different people would write 10 
different stories, but the conclusion would be the same: *it depends*. 
Larry hoped that we could write a better story than RFC 3986 (and RFC 
3987, which is mostly the same story, just with some twists added). 
Also, on occasion, we had the dream to get rid of the URI vs. IRI 
distinction.

Based on the experience with that document, I'd recommend to mostly 
leave the equivalence/canonicalization/comparison story alone to save 
cycles for more immediately relevant work. Of course that doesn't 
exclude the possibility that somebody write a better story, but that can 
be done as a paper or a blog entry or an informal RFC independent of 
standards work.

Just my 2¢.

Regards,   Martin.