Re: [apps-discuss] Comments on draft-ietf-appsawg-about-uri-scheme

Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Mon, 28 November 2011 17:38 UTC

Return-Path: <barryleiba.mailing.lists@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 5B14D21F8AC3 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Nov 2011 09:38:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.677
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.677 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RlAU3sdR26Mc for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Nov 2011 09:38:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yx0-f172.google.com (mail-yx0-f172.google.com [209.85.213.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2D1121F891D for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 28 Nov 2011 09:38:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: by yenq1 with SMTP id q1so1454070yen.31 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 28 Nov 2011 09:38:55 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=Jbyt6THKuPSEBlUYGNmEMAMvuO6yuXOjCihQNiIAJhQ=; b=GuqKtLQv0W19QKy5hBAz+O6uzOTl7shgAC6jUTrFX6+wV3LdqbwoWGQrDJa8PHr9yi 3nheRqbeBo7/0hODOD3GsRb8bOhtNGQbF3d5k+TkpbDHKORRedfx4FQ2WMhg8LbdwReD PZxNLFKeQ8Cb8biRx7eJsN7DZq2HJJ89NEIs8=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.236.181.234 with SMTP id l70mr63600407yhm.49.1322501935338; Mon, 28 Nov 2011 09:38:55 -0800 (PST)
Sender: barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com
Received: by 10.146.107.9 with HTTP; Mon, 28 Nov 2011 09:38:54 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <4ED3A616.5030600@gmail.com>
References: <4EC16815.80501@gmail.com> <4EC1D4C1.7080406@isode.com> <4EC40EC3.9080304@gmail.com> <4EC8B870.7070105@isode.com> <4ECA3A2C.1010606@gmail.com> <CAC4RtVBDoQj3j9xO4uZZuX-AmLkkwHMFd6y5sVVaj5KqDxcaUQ@mail.gmail.com> <4ED3A616.5030600@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2011 12:38:54 -0500
X-Google-Sender-Auth: sCfYjB1RlJ6ajEihY7TxBhpolXA
Message-ID: <CAC4RtVD2VqkcP4b90+98QVFD+r68W=PcnUeadNap3ZWS98SugQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
To: =?UTF-8?B?TXlreXRhIFlldnN0aWZleWV2ICjQnC4g0ITQstGB0YLRltGE0LXRlNCyKQ==?= <evnikita2@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: Apps-discuss list <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Comments on draft-ietf-appsawg-about-uri-scheme
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Mon, 28 Nov 2011 17:38:56 -0000

>> I think a better way to approach it would be to replace all the
>> angle-brackets with quotes, so:
>>
>> NEW
>>    In terms of RFC 3986, the "about-token" part corresponds to
>> "hier-part",
>>    and "about-query" to the query component of the URI.
>
> I'm following the recommendation of RFC 5234:
>
>>    Unlike original BNF, angle brackets ("<",">") are not required.
>>    However, angle brackets may be used around a rule name whenever their
>>    presence facilitates in discerning the use of a rule name.
>
> ... so I think no change is needed.

I think it's clearer to the reader with quotation marks than with
angle-brackets, and clarity is what's most important.  But I'm not
going to argue this further -- it's not a big deal, and if you prefer
the brackets, that's OK.

>> As I said in my other note, I agree with Alexey here: I don't think
>> this part is appropriate.  (1) If it's here, it needs some text
>> explaining and justifying it, and (2) the goal here is to keep the
>> document simple, just doing what's necessary to get this stuff
>> registered.
>
> Sp you propose removing this paragraph?

Yes, I think that's the best approach.

Barry