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

t.petch <ietfc@btconnect.com> Fri, 23 January 2015 13:31 UTC

Return-Path: <ietfc@btconnect.com>
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 DC6311A90B6 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Jan 2015 05:31:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.854
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.854 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FRT_ADOBE2=2.455, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001] 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 7_yf4-iHZH3W for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Jan 2015 05:31:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from emea01-am1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-am1on0769.outbound.protection.outlook.com [IPv6:2a01:111:f400:fe00::769]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 59C661A90B8 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Jan 2015 05:31:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pc6 (81.151.167.59) by DBXPR07MB064.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (10.242.147.24) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.59.20; Fri, 23 Jan 2015 13:23:08 +0000
Message-ID: <01cc01d0370f$8ea72460$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
From: "t.petch" <ietfc@btconnect.com>
To: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>, "Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
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> <54C0D7A2.6040208@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <BN3PR0201MB09453A19DAB9AE3DEFB927DFC3360@BN3PR0201MB0945.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 13:21:47 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
X-Originating-IP: [81.151.167.59]
X-ClientProxiedBy: DB4PR05CA0014.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com (25.160.40.24) To DBXPR07MB064.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (10.242.147.24)
Authentication-Results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=ietfc@btconnect.com;
X-DmarcAction-Test: None
X-Microsoft-Antispam: UriScan:;
X-Microsoft-Antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:(3005004);SRVR:DBXPR07MB064;
X-Exchange-Antispam-Report-Test: UriScan:;
X-Exchange-Antispam-Report-CFA-Test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(601004); SRVR:DBXPR07MB064;
X-Forefront-PRVS: 0465429B7F
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(51704005)(13464003)(377454003)(19580395003)(81816999)(76176999)(50986999)(230783001)(81686999)(86362001)(42186005)(92566002)(46102003)(93886004)(587094005)(84392001)(19580405001)(62966003)(77156002)(23676002)(61296003)(1556002)(87976001)(50226001)(40100003)(44736004)(50466002)(14496001)(33646002)(116806002)(122386002)(44716002)(16601075003)(47776003)(62236002)(77096005)(1456003)(15975445007)(66066001)(74416001)(7726001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:DBXPR07MB064; H:pc6; FPR:; SPF:None; MLV:nov; PTR:InfoNoRecords; LANG:en;
Received-SPF: None (protection.outlook.com: btconnect.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
X-Exchange-Antispam-Report-CFA-Test: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:DBXPR07MB064;
X-OriginatorOrg: btconnect.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Jan 2015 13:23:08.5650 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DBXPR07MB064
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/apps-discuss/K3hKKjzN_hoOgftMD-079BJ03oQ>
Cc: apps-discuss <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: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 13:31:44 -0000

---- Original Message -----
From: "Larry Masinter" <masinter@adobe.com>
To: "Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>; "t.petch"
<ietfc@btconnect.com>
Cc: <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Sent: Friday, January 23, 2015 6:58 AM

> > 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.
>
> I think separating it out into a separate document that can proceed at
its own pace is a good idea, but there are important specific use cases
to standardize.
>
> > 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.
>
> I think there are requirements on
comparison/equivalence/canonicalization that need to be normative, and
what we have, now, is normative but misleading or incorrect. A URL needs
to be equivalent to the URI it parses into.

Larry, Martin

Thank you for the clarification.  I see now how the I-D would have
updated RFC3986 had it advanced to completion.

I was not intending to pursue the subject of comparison further at this
time, rather the I-D is part of a Bibliography I hark back to when
issues of IRIs come up (as  recently they did).  Expired Draft it may
be, but I still find it a useful source of ideas.

Tom Petch









>
> Larry
> --
> http://larry.masinter.net
>
>