Re: [apps-discuss] APPSDIR review of draft-gregorio-uritemplate-07

"Jiankang YAO" <yaojk@cnnic.cn> Thu, 08 December 2011 06:42 UTC

Return-Path: <yaojk@cnnic.cn>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E59F21F8B11 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Dec 2011 22:42:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.436
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.436 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.410, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EQq2qVhDBxIZ for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Dec 2011 22:42:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cnnic.cn (smtp.cnnic.cn [159.226.7.146]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 0C8CF21F8B0F for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 7 Dec 2011 22:42:00 -0800 (PST)
X-EYOUMAIL-SMTPAUTH: yaojk@cnnic.cn
Received: from unknown127.0.0.1 (HELO lenovo47e041cf) (127.0.0.1) by 127.0.0.1 with SMTP; Thu, 08 Dec 2011 14:41:54 +0800
Message-ID: <583806B95F08410DBEFE3E04E79D28A4@LENOVO47E041CF>
From: "Jiankang YAO" <yaojk@cnnic.cn>
To: "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net>
References: <89527141FD764100A4B43FEDBC6E027F@LENOVO47E041CF> <A253E377-4588-4A50-B837-8FE2E5082F15@mnot.net>
Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2011 14:41:56 +0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157
Cc: draft-gregorio-uritemplate.all@tools.ietf.org, IETF Apps Discuss <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] APPSDIR review of draft-gregorio-uritemplate-07
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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, 08 Dec 2011 06:42:04 -0000

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net>
To: "Jiankang YAO" <yaojk@cnnic.cn>
Cc: "IETF Apps Discuss" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>rg>; <draft-gregorio-uritemplate.all@tools.ietf.org>
Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2011 5:07 PM
Subject: Re: APPSDIR review of draft-gregorio-uritemplate-07


Thanks for the feedback. Responses inline.

On 07/12/2011, at 2:18 PM, Jiankang YAO wrote:

> I have been selected as the Applications Area Directorate reviewer 
> for this draft (for background on appsdir, please 
> see 
> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/ApplicationsAreaDirectorate 
> ).  
> Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments 
> you may receive. Please wait for direction from your document 
> shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft.
> 
> Document: draft-gregorio-uritemplate-07
> Title: URI Template
> 
> Reviewer: Jiankang Yao
> Review Date: December 7, 2011
> 
> Summary:
> 
> This draft is almost ready for publication as a Proposed Standard. But before publication, the following 
> issues should be considered or addressed.
> 
> Major issues:
> 
> 
> 1) In section 1.5.  Notational Conventions
> 
> There is a repetition of definition of ALPHA, DIGIT, HEXDIG,......
> 
> There is a discussion in IETF: we should not give the repetition of definition of ABNF syntax if we can refer it to other documents. The reason is that repetition may bring the errors or misunderstanding.
> 
> Suggestion: for example, we just say "ALPHA, DIGIT are imported from RFC5234" instead of repeating
> "ALPHA          =  %x41-5A / %x61-7A   ; A-Z / a-z"

==>Is this a discussion that's already taken place?

yes. the rule has been followed by EAI WG.


> 4)There is a lot of "A URI Template" in section 1, but there is no precise definition of "URI Template" in section 1. The definition seems to appear on section 2.
> Comments: If the readers can understand it clearly, the definition should appear first.

==>Could you make a concrete proposal here?

what is "URI Template" should be defined in section 1.
there is no precise or clear definition of "URI Template" in section 1.


Jiankang Yao