Re: [apps-discuss] presumption that RFC3986 is correct

Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> Sat, 03 January 2015 17:54 UTC

Return-Path: <rubys@intertwingly.net>
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 745D51A9104 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 3 Jan 2015 09:54:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=ham
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 8AysXZMaBrqX for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 3 Jan 2015 09:54:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cdptpa-oedge-vip.email.rr.com (cdptpa-outbound-snat.email.rr.com [107.14.166.229]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 658E71A9100 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Sat, 3 Jan 2015 09:54:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [98.27.51.253] ([98.27.51.253:22861] helo=rubix) by cdptpa-oedge03 (envelope-from <rubys@intertwingly.net>) (ecelerity 3.5.0.35861 r(Momo-dev:tip)) with ESMTP id 96/44-20729-5CC28A45; Sat, 03 Jan 2015 17:54:13 +0000
Received: from [192.168.1.102] (unknown [192.168.1.102]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: rubys) by rubix (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3DB7B140035; Sat, 3 Jan 2015 12:54:13 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <54A82CC4.9080606@intertwingly.net>
Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2015 12:54:12 -0500
From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
References: <20140926010029.26660.82167.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <EAACE200D9B0224D94BF52CF2DD166A425A68A90@ex10mb6.qut.edu.au> <CACweHNBEYRFAuw9-vfeyd_wf703cvM3ykZoRMqAokRFYG_O7hQ@mail.gmail.com> <DM2PR0201MB09602B351692D424A49C6B0DC3650@DM2PR0201MB0960.namprd02.prod.outlook.com> <CACweHNBN_Bv=jeXQ_VwXi2HzHKNEwZJ1NiF-BJJo_9-mhO60gQ@mail.gmail.com> <54A5730C.8040501@ninebynine.org> <54A583DD.9010602@intertwingly.net> <54A59651.4060306@ninebynine.org> <54A59B26.5000408@intertwingly.net> <54A6AABF.4060406@ninebynine.org> <54A6B6DF.1010206@intertwingly.net> <54A7DC46.2020708@ninebynine.org> <54A7E9F4.80406@intertwingly.net> <54A820EA.20200@ninebynine.org>
In-Reply-To: <54A820EA.20200@ninebynine.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-RR-Connecting-IP: 107.14.168.142:25
X-Cloudmark-Score: 0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/apps-discuss/Mej0f4odbX13DwGZFO0IN2wY5eA
Cc: apps-discuss@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] presumption that RFC3986 is correct
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: Sat, 03 Jan 2015 17:54:16 -0000

On 01/03/2015 12:03 PM, Graham Klyne wrote:
> On 03/01/2015 13:09, Sam Ruby wrote:
>> On 01/03/2015 07:10 AM, Graham Klyne wrote:
>>>
>>> 3. Where there is divergence between implementations and RFC3986, these
>>> indeed should be considered on a case-by-case basis, but with (IMO) the
>>> presumption that RFC3986 is correct.  I.e. it is for those who think
>>> there is a problem with RFC3986 to make the case.
>>
>> You ask me to presume that RFC 3986 is correct.  That's a big ask.
>> Particularly
>> given that there is no clear path provided for updating RFC 3986.  For
>> context,
>> that's a decade old spec that I did not participate in the development
>> of, and I
>> have clear data that shows that popular parsing libraries -- client,
>> sever, and
>> everywhere in the middle -- don't implement.
>
> Presumption:  "An idea that is taken to be true on the basis of
> probability"
> -- http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/presumption
>
> (Note: not "assumption".  I mean like "presumption of innocence")

If you wish to give me a language lesson, the please permit me to do 
likewise.

Evidence: "the available body of facts or information indicating whether 
a belief or proposition is true or valid."

(Note: not "faith".  I mean like "scientific evidence")

> For precisely the reasons you state (i.e. it's been around and in use
> for a while, and it has been the primary reference source for
> implementers who care about standards) I don't think it's a big ask.
> But if you feel differently, then so be it.

It indeed has been around for a while.  As have a large number of 
implementations.  Many of which predate RFC 3986.

A large number of well-intentioned implementations do indeed give lip 
service to RFC 3986 compliance.  You may chose to accept those claims on 
face value.  As I have evidence to the contrary, sadly, I no longer do.

I intend to work with implementors, providing patches and/or new 
implementations along the way.  And I'll continue to document and 
publish findings.  One such place I have published such work is at the  W3C:

   http://www.w3.org/TR/url/

Meanwhile, I'm actively inquiring as to whether there are others who 
would be willing to help update RFC 3986 with me.  If that is not meant 
to be, so be it.

> #g
> --

- Sam Ruby