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

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Sun, 28 November 2010 11:37 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 2650C3A6BC3 for <apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 28 Nov 2010 03:37:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -104.34
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.34 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.741, 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 v7mWsBDaegLI for <apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 28 Nov 2010 03:37:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.gmx.net (mailout-de.gmx.net [213.165.64.22]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 0E6423A6AF1 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Sun, 28 Nov 2010 03:37:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 28 Nov 2010 11:38:24 -0000
Received: from p508FBF0D.dip.t-dialin.net (EHLO [192.168.178.33]) [80.143.191.13] by mail.gmx.net (mp008) with SMTP; 28 Nov 2010 12:38:24 +0100
X-Authenticated: #1915285
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX18ia1YYzxQiz+qwDgZabI8mlXLtItSega2Ltd0FxI IKzEwWvTnPcKwq
Message-ID: <4CF23F2D.5090001@gmx.de>
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2010 12:38:21 +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> <4CF22F2B.9070906@gmx.de> <4CF23396.2040207@gmail.com> <4CF2386A.3050701@gmx.de> <4CF23C78.2010204@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <4CF23C78.2010204@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 11:37:21 -0000

On 28.11.2010 12:26, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
> ...
>> Please have a look at RFC 3986 and consider just re-using the syntax
>> from over there, if it matches.
> Yes, it is just reusing. tn3270 is telnet3270 in fact. tn stands as
> acronym for telnet.
> ...

That doesn't seem to be a reply to what I said.

> ...
>> Actually, that is not the case. The ABNF needs to say what the
>> character repertoire for these parts is, and the prose needs to state
>> whether there's an escaping mechanism that can be used to map more
>> characters into this syntax.
> I'll put smth. like 'user = *VCHAR' there.

That would make the ABNF ambiguous. You need to exclude certain 
characters so that the other components can be detected. Again, by any 
means, have a look at RFC 3986.

> ...
>> Furthermore:
>>
>> URI scheme encoding considerations: tn3270 scheme uses UTF-8 (see RFC
>> 3629 [RFC3629] for details) for encoding data. No internalization is
>> intended
>>
>> URIs do not contain non-ASCII characters. What you *could* say is that
>> if the URI is built from components that *do* allow non-ASCII
>> characters, such as the username, you need to map them to octets using
>> UTF-8. But then you say "no internalization is intended"? What is it?
>> How does IDNA work here?
> Generally HOST is an IP address and it is will be very few
> cases when THIS scheme will be used with internationalized
> DNS names.

OK, in that case you should say that non-ASCII characters in the host 
name component should be treated as per the IRI spec, Section xyz.

>> Also, in the Normative References, you may want to check whether all
>> of these are normative. For instance, the "telnet" scheme is only
>> cited in the security considerations section, so I don't see why it
>> would be normative.
> We import a section (or a part of a section) of telnet scheme
> spec. to this document. It is Normative only.

OK, let's agree to disagree on this one :-).

Best regards, Julian