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

Larry Masinter <> Fri, 23 January 2015 05:23 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30D801A1A5B for <>; Thu, 22 Jan 2015 21:23:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jvFZW2ZZZpZm for <>; Thu, 22 Jan 2015 21:23:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a01:111:f400:fc10::1:615]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 005131A0275 for <>; Thu, 22 Jan 2015 21:23:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id; Fri, 23 Jan 2015 05:23:15 +0000
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.01.0059.007; Fri, 23 Jan 2015 05:23:15 +0000
From: Larry Masinter <>
To: "t.petch" <>
Thread-Topic: draft-ietf-iri-comparison
Thread-Index: AQHQNi9NMknCnoECn062w/S4lSg7MpzNBGKg
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 05:23:14 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <012001d02d91$6ec42300$> <> <018e01d02dc6$1d03b0a0$> <> <> <> <20150116033032.GD2350@localhost> <> <015c01d0362f$1f6f6020$>
In-Reply-To: <015c01d0362f$1f6f6020$>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: [2601:9:8380:992:c17a:a9a3:47a2:acd0]
authentication-results:; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;; dmarc=none action=none;
x-dmarcaction-test: None
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:(3005004);SRVR:BN3PR0201MB0948;
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:;
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:BN3PR0201MB0948;
x-forefront-prvs: 0465429B7F
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(6009001)(93886004)(50986999)(76176999)(54606007)(54356999)(2900100001)(54206007)(15975445007)(102836002)(2656002)(33656002)(62966003)(77156002)(230783001)(74316001)(87936001)(76576001)(110136001)(46102003)(2950100001)(92566002)(106116001)(19580395003)(86362001)(99286002)(122556002)(40100003)(7059030)(3826002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:BN3PR0201MB0948;; FPR:; SPF:None; MLV:sfv; LANG:en;
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 23 Jan 2015 05:23:14.6287 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: fa7b1b5a-7b34-4387-94ae-d2c178decee1
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BN3PR0201MB0948
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] draft-ietf-iri-comparison
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 05:23:43 -0000

Tom Petch wrote, re draft-ietf-iri-comparison

> I notice that this (expired) I-D updates RFC3986 which seems germane to
> recent discussions on this list.  Reading it, I can see why it might
> update RFC3987 or 3987bis but cannot see where it updates RFC3986.
> What am I missing?

I'm afraid

" As URIs are a subset of IRIs, the guidelines apply to URI comparison as well."

should have said the id ("Comparison, Equivalence and Canonicalization
 of Internationalized Resource Identifiers")
was intended to replace RFC 3986 section 6 "Normalization and Comparison"
in its entirety.

At this point I'd suggest comments on open in URL issues

Should equivalence of URLs should mandate that if you parse URL  A and
get back URI B, then A must be equivalent to B?
Then, if you have a different URL C that turns into B, C must also be equivalent
to A and B. Even for URLs that are valid URIs. 
This requirement in 3986 is just a MAY.