Re: [apps-discuss] I-D Action: draft-ietf-appsawg-file-scheme-07.txt

Matthew Kerwin <> Thu, 21 April 2016 04:06 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45D1A12E5F7 for <>; Wed, 20 Apr 2016 21:06:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.149
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.149 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.199, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nNDRjmdOzsnv for <>; Wed, 20 Apr 2016 21:06:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::241]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7510812E599 for <>; Wed, 20 Apr 2016 21:06:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id qu10so9055955igc.1 for <>; Wed, 20 Apr 2016 21:06:55 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc; bh=V9zDLl7+ZyGsBD3RG5Fn0Ywt1T9AK+G36UU9ri3ZL74=; b=OlxRXGOPeAPWCdksWWnXod79eIP+ooRtRtSXkL+edV9c0xklx1Yf0Q9GxOOeWS7xNv qNNljjTsfXt07KQe1Ov2qxESnyrO2Tjmu4rgWV/gxZL1HXCrTW+vmX091prnaqS0+o4s WFpf5oOKbUdSVT741pcC+gu0/INQ5DE2vmxBim1GH/ewh9NhJz8qM/Jy7gPYotmHR36V DbJD/HA9wjlNiNooceBztUfv5GgkLvbXOZ4MFjmVNgpq103XEOj4CIqVrPP7+e+qXQF/ +WUFETM1DTD4gx9lIBtO+zKhNsUezZVZaA7wvqhyjt3YWYqKCp6ob1excLnThexqa2p2 NuYg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=V9zDLl7+ZyGsBD3RG5Fn0Ywt1T9AK+G36UU9ri3ZL74=; b=TIKS82o6jmXsVCus83K/83AME6XsbhbmxYPxkN3UxwpSuV/yg7IaUS/b7QI0Bzn/oP 9Krkg0Qba23xidmElPYabapH0T6tYTZh/YCMFPs5Tzxf15brfkvjX9yChYPUWRqiMVXS raZybzn8cJLSToHYJouPucIpeVlqDyJyVfAs7zAMP33/B/bO1mhzGn/Zldoi5kB3H/sZ pKKgxO1FqmezewJw9nsP4mvzI+eV/B8MzV59pfFKnALZTyp5T8/KiLdGjTbHW315K9hq KpkqCkmwmYeiDLJQ554xf1w4RjF3fff9UOWmFJZmwYz3gSK6e7Dx/OJ7QKB8MnDZKqOd sY2g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FXCjNsLLDxFPbXx4OCP+z+aDYY1OkwUVbwU9SLks5R2TqgIcduIGLhMnn8pQVPolgbihxwJt9d8M9fHEw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id q7mr984383igg.34.1461211614774; Wed, 20 Apr 2016 21:06:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Wed, 20 Apr 2016 21:06:54 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <>
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2016 14:06:54 +1000
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 8mJGcejpVuOyi5fxMKk3PE3pIOw
Message-ID: <>
From: Matthew Kerwin <>
To: Graham Klyne <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b10ce153d950b0530f6d732
Archived-At: <>
Cc: Julian Reschke <>, Mark Nottingham <>, Dave Crocker <>, IETF Apps Discuss <>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] I-D Action: draft-ietf-appsawg-file-scheme-07.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2016 04:06:58 -0000

Hi Graham,

Thanks for the review again.

On 21 April 2016 at 09:18, Graham Klyne <> wrote:

> Hi Matthew,
> I think the main body of the document is a lot crisper now.  I have a
> couple of comments from a fairly quick scan.  The main substantive comment
> is that local access can occur when the file URI contains a host name which
> is the same as that for the host from which access is being attempted.
You know what, I think you're right, and I've been suffering from
confirmation bias. I just tested it again, and both Chromium and Firefox do
treat my machine's network name the same as "localhost". Windows and IE do
it the way I've documented in the draft, but it seems they're the only
ones. (If only I'd had mnot's test suite ...)

I'll change all the appropriate parts to say the right thing.

I've not done a detailed read through of the appendices - much of the
> material there is outside my experience.
Appendices A and B are the generally useful ones.

> Section 2:
> [[
>    Some file systems allow directory objects to be treated as files in
>    some cases.  This can be reflected in a file URI by omitting the
>    trailing slash "/" from the path.  Be aware that merging a relative
>    URI reference to such a base URI as per Section 5.2 of [RFC3986]
>    could remove the directory name from the resulting target URI.
> ]]
> I think the second sentence is wandering into local implementation
> details.  I'd suggest focusing more on the idea that the trailing slash
> should be included in URIs that refer to directories.
I preferred stating the use-case and the potential problems it causes,
rather than making a judgement call. I'm not 100% invested in it, though,
and can cut it back if it's too far the wrong way.

> Section 3:
> [[
>    A file URI can be dependably dereferenced or translated to a local
>    file path only if it is local.  A file URI is considered "local" if
>    it has no "file-auth", or the "file-auth" is the special string
>    "localhost".
> ]]
> There's also the case when the hostname resolves to the local host.
Yep, I will include that when I make the change.

  Matthew Kerwin