Re: [apps-discuss] [Uri-review] New version of tn3270 draft

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Sun, 28 November 2010 10:29 UTC

Return-Path: <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0023428C0EF for <apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 28 Nov 2010 02:29:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -104.66
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.66 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.061, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eJxnhLiRX2nH for <apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 28 Nov 2010 02:29:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.gmx.net (mailout-de.gmx.net [213.165.64.23]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id AED393A6BC9 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Sun, 28 Nov 2010 02:28:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 28 Nov 2010 10:30:05 -0000
Received: from p508FBF0D.dip.t-dialin.net (EHLO [192.168.178.33]) [80.143.191.13] by mail.gmx.net (mp045) with SMTP; 28 Nov 2010 11:30:05 +0100
X-Authenticated: #1915285
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1/dMbB0sI7dcVS9MQ4rJk05b1KtRIQJtUYwQvI7/u /Hf3/tiytJX0rj
Message-ID: <4CF22F2B.9070906@gmx.de>
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2010 11:30:03 +0100
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101027 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <evnikita2@gmail.com>
References: <201011261556.QAA29714@TR-Sys.de> <4CF229A3.40808@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <4CF229A3.40808@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
Cc: Alfred � <ah@TR-Sys.de>, GK@ninebynine.org, uri-review@ietf.org, apps-discuss@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] [Uri-review] New version of tn3270 draft
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Sun, 28 Nov 2010 10:29:10 -0000

On 28.11.2010 11:06, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> A new version of tn3270 draft (-05) is now available on
> the I-D repository. It includes the following changes:
>
> -added the template for IANA to register the scheme as
> *Provisional*;
> -added more detailed description of TN3270 service
> (with references to corresponding RFCs);
> -added more references;
> -added Acknowledgments section;
> -another minor changes.
>
> I am sending this message to Applications Area ADs -
> Alexey Melnikov and Peter Saint-Andre in order they
> can review this document.
>
> Any suggestions for improvements are welcome.
>
> Best regards,
> Mykyta Yevstifeyev

Sunday morning nitpicking:

1) It's really confusing when you submit 3 drafts on the same day, and 
some of them only fix minor typos, or punctuation. That makes it hard to 
find out what actually changed. Also, draft -04 seems to have the wrong 
submission date.

2) A URI scheme definition that cites RFC 3986 only for security 
considerations makes me nervous. For instance, it should be clear how 
the individual components would be recognized by a generic URI parser. 
It appears that all you're saying that the scheme-specific part maps to:

   "//" authority

3) ABNF comments

3a) What's the delimiter between password and host?

3b) What's the [/] at the end for? Did you mean [ "/" ]?

3c) Please avoid prose constructions; they are not sufficient to 
actually parse the URI. So which characters are allowed in "user", 
"password" and "host"?

4) You're not citing the URI scheme registration RFC (4395), nor have 
the information requested in 
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4395#section-5.4>.

Best regards, Julian