Re: [apps-discuss] I-D Action: draft-ietf-appsawg-file-scheme-09.txt

Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au> Fri, 20 May 2016 06:37 UTC

Return-Path: <phluid61@gmail.com>
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 CCBAB12B013 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 May 2016 23:37:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.15
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.15 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=0.198, 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: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 rA9zuODW0uja for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 May 2016 23:37:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ig0-x235.google.com (mail-ig0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::235]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E878F12D6B5 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 May 2016 23:37:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ig0-x235.google.com with SMTP id l10so4282429igk.0 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 May 2016 23:37:02 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc; bh=h2oxZfHgKX8shKDZtka13rmYYlDP6J9QiyWSkEuCitU=; b=Lgz27X/Vyjk517Z0FTvxvnGzN3oYuv5RzbqGCdUfgNoWNzlBm/xuCVXnvkGVqng5NU /qjDSYG2IHeg3I5f+ORGW0ttw1+FsIjy2g2WabhiqnBr6so+R78KaybxHMIJn5K7Yblt 9iGzqHk6GduBIGumjp0QrUCNIRt+F8KID3g1HFzld3PcJLz9zFgfP3LsGbAEyo/p3R7M MRDlNw/Yt5UB+mn4j9ukkGkR89TFJy962dZ/bL16H3Q1Ya/KbIpeLdB8jo3fYGLFXM2K OFEXHzdEr54UyjrJ3o7URHv/ntV3Tsox57eyYNj95PIFKaa1PYEhJZGpkWMqJN5MO7eG DoWQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=h2oxZfHgKX8shKDZtka13rmYYlDP6J9QiyWSkEuCitU=; b=GwutWSH8b923PfjesHtHPMMnnxTTLIFOE4r41+TKGT9g7/7CenIckB0yhL/KqTS8/r R6L5xNxguX/80lmqQ6IFYe2VXYQ7DkxUpbup0dpjzba0Uny0UA/4CtMT3ko/20k0diA6 ZxvEaSAERd+NmFNk/1HyUCe5QUdyCoiFjoIRVCWbJmpJyEjZqHqWGeZngxbdnTVO0vHa JNv6qF4M4KIQmG0xY1chLGw2cBgRywGODWkXkivQB6nrNi07t40viBcJnKwPpiOWfO5Q rGKerRIezCU7HHQ+a93dMnavJV01v20WKUMQcxCJfYwf5C3A2PQ7d+4/9T6NgkqZqE04 naFw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FXT+XnBolWXnqYmNrfXKE/m3XFpIzMKXj7ERLVQpBreovzU0dhQRfoEFWFirw5lX/95l8FI1aiS3nwopQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.183.132 with SMTP id em4mr1429161igc.50.1463726222253; Thu, 19 May 2016 23:37:02 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: phluid61@gmail.com
Received: by 10.107.138.160 with HTTP; Thu, 19 May 2016 23:37:02 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <AEA52E18-8ECF-4497-A6C7-AD7F1B4B47DD@mnot.net>
References: <20160515051508.2444.90815.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <c52370bf-dffa-4b57-9f33-52a49456b3a8@seantek.com> <CACweHNBuR8X_ub6J-yOtvoV7CjZyDC5__qKNHWGtxsjZbvyB0w@mail.gmail.com> <AEA52E18-8ECF-4497-A6C7-AD7F1B4B47DD@mnot.net>
Date: Fri, 20 May 2016 16:37:02 +1000
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 6wT28MsReMME9kEJ9IZNGXUL-Eg
Message-ID: <CACweHNASbgVNvHM67UD_gDsc7L1GakLao2PsYqjZ9oiz_+v7wQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=14dae9340c9586bbf9053340515a
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/apps-discuss/LTi5HibCOlZaBzgHMinDc4vUPXY>
Cc: IETF Apps Discuss <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] I-D Action: draft-ietf-appsawg-file-scheme-09.txt
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 20 May 2016 06:37:05 -0000

Hi Mark,

On 16 May 2016 at 17:06, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:

> Hi Matthew,
>
> I think the new Section 4 is an improvement -- much more precise than it
> was. However, a few questions still linger for me:
>
> > 4.  File Name Encoding
> >
> >    File systems use various encoding schemes to store file and directory
> >    names.  Many modern file systems encode file and directory names as
> >    arbitrary sequences of octets,
>
> This is a bit confusing -- perhaps s/encode/store/ ? Or remove this part
> of the sentence altogether?
>
>
​I'll think about what I'm trying to say here, and how it could be said
better. Your suggestion is probably right.



> >    in which case the representation as an
> >    encoded string often depends on the user's localization settings, or
> >    defaults to UTF-8 [STD63].
> >
> >    Without other encoding information, percent-encoded octets in a file
> >    URI ([RFC3986], Section 2.1) MAY be interpreted according to the
> >    preferred or configured encoding of the system on which the URI is
> >    being interpreted.
>
>
> Do the current implementations of file:// do this -- i.e., use the
> filesystem's encoding for the URI?
>
>
​Apparently. I don't have a spare drive lying around where I can reformat a
partition to test it for myself, though. A discussion I had with Dave
Thaler back at the very start of this draft revolved around the fact that
percent-encoded URIs are ambiguous (apparently a real issue for Windows),
which was why for a very long time the draft contained advice to use an
IRI​ instead, or at the least normalize.



> Doing it that way seems unfortunate; two different users on the same
> machine (or network) won't see good interop in this approach.
>
> If it's this way intentionally, or if we think it can't change, that's
> understandable, but if not we should have a good hard look at changing it
> IMO.
>
> Has there been any discussion of this to date (sorry if I missed it)?
>
>
A fair bit of discussion on what the draft should say (for example
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/msg14943.html ),
not much discussion on whether we should advise URI libraries to update.

Cheers
-- 
  Matthew Kerwin
  http://matthew.kerwin.net.au/