Re: [apps-discuss] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-yevstifeyev-ftp-iri-00.txt

Frank Ellermann <> Sat, 16 July 2011 01:57 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 170AA21F86EB for <>; Fri, 15 Jul 2011 18:57:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.024
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.024 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.075, BAYES_00=-2.599, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ez6CrRuPgjmT for <>; Fri, 15 Jul 2011 18:57:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E62021F86E5 for <>; Fri, 15 Jul 2011 18:57:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pvh18 with SMTP id 18so2274018pvh.31 for <multiple recipients>; Fri, 15 Jul 2011 18:57:22 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=dLqO9DrS9i/w5aoCykiB11cOEq0h002j0Begjz48mRM=; b=P1wj15gk5hx5pQl9oNQe4bmTodRdZWwhoPQ7u9vNa6ef+pV4EhjqnxwVC7fAgOgh/P TDnRA+f7D9uiFCe3HvpqPYvfdJVr/Gbm5qGlDXLiqTSI4NG67B2cJfX7ylg7Rj2zZA5a TUaCMT5ObV5bbR3++K94ZWVqau9RHfPU2HeHo=
Received: by with SMTP id x13mr1848196wfh.9.1310781440113; Fri, 15 Jul 2011 18:57:20 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Fri, 15 Jul 2011 18:57:00 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
From: Frank Ellermann <>
Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2011 03:57:00 +0200
Message-ID: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Cc: Apps-discuss list <>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-yevstifeyev-ftp-iri-00.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2011 01:57:23 -0000

On 15 July 2011 06:26, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:


That makes no sense.  There should be "i18n considerations"
in your FTP URI draft as mandated by the IETF charset policy
(BCP 18).

This section can mainly consist of a pointer to RFC 3987,
because copying stuff for FTP IRIs already explained for
any IRIs is either redundant, or in the worst case it could
introduce incompatibilities or bugs.

It is good that your IRI draft has a reference to RFC 5198,
but you can get the same effect in i18n considerations of
your URI draft - and as far as I'm concerned that should be
be normative, not only informative.

If you seriously wish to discuss "FTP IRIs" in these i18n
considerations you'd be forced to admit that many legacy FTP
servers use only legacy charsets, and therefore legacy URIs
for resources on such servers are certainly no IRIs.  Worse,
equivalent FTP IRIs would not work with legacy FTP servers.

The more you talk about "FTP IRIs", the worse this gets, so
just don't, and let RFC 3987 (and 3987bis) clean up the mess
for *all* URI schemes (not only FTP).