Return-Path: 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 A220121E803D for ; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 16:10:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] 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 4TXAIGzvk5Fg for ; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 16:10:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wi0-x22f.google.com (mail-wi0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::22f]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A787321E8037 for ; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 16:10:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wi0-f175.google.com with SMTP id c10so2086958wiw.14 for ; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 16:10:28 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=n/k6C1L0D2IDtZFg9MkUlWpYvlPbnCLKVmmzavoVVBc=; b=tzMF+KDIGe1jRkQQimN3CbK0uCXIJm8/sZWHWwR3BiLt6NqU4PcpQ19Orr5VZIQs3m ct0Y04yXlkj9HpmGcGGYmxhZH+jq7X+Yaer64ndrR8kOE4jS8vAhNKrIAv1OMmA4oSv6 HkcLor17KTlRoOPFaf7/toR1lzW7EYaSRCmbEt7o8dat6x4GIFm+zzBOFHPp2ZYzv7LU vJTKeV+hYyKKDp87jqvtnq9bX0hqZVi7lI4e6LWloXZTDrrH04+wIaTsFWC1DrOBJtCp f9jKwaPe0OjCdCe3/KCVcuwEETTf53/IBAIvwF9My/YUJPWS7bgip7y8py9ZBVya1F2O 91iQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.97.233 with SMTP id ed9mr14986326wib.32.1366067428652; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 16:10:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.180.36.176 with HTTP; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 16:10:28 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <516C887F.7020007@berkeley.edu> References: <51625870.8000906@berkeley.edu> <516C887F.7020007@berkeley.edu> Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 16:10:28 -0700 Message-ID: From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: Erik Wilde Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d044306aad3001304da6e5b02 Cc: Joe Gregorio , IETF Apps Discuss Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Question about URI template and expansion of an empty list X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org 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: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 23:10:30 -0000 --f46d044306aad3001304da6e5b02 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 I emailed the authors several days ago. None replied. Unless one of our ADs thinks it's a bad idea (and hopefully they're watching), I would post an erratum. -MSK On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 4:08 PM, Erik Wilde wrote: > hello. > > > On 2013-04-15 15:59 , Francis Galiegue wrote: > >> I have a pretty complete RFC 6570 implementation, but these corner >> cases are what prevent me from arguing that "yes, it obeys the RFC", >> especially since some advanced tests out there seem to disagree with >> my, and others', interpretation of this RFC. >> > > i just want to add my support for francis' question. i am not as far down > the line implementing the spec, but i see myself asking the same question > once i am. and i am still interested how james (snell) solved this riddle > when adding support for the test case (where the test case behavior is hard > to explain from the spec language). > > http://code.google.com/p/uri-**templates/wiki/Implementationslists a number of implementations, and it would be interesting to know what > they have been doing, and how they handle the test case in question. > > thanks and cheers, > > > dret. > > -- > erik wilde | mailto:dret@berkeley.edu - tel:+1-510-2061079 | > | UC Berkeley - School of Information (ISchool) | > | http://dret.net/netdret http://twitter.com/dret | > --f46d044306aad3001304da6e5b02 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I emailed the authors several days ago.=A0 None = replied.

Unless one of our ADs thinks it's a bad idea (and= hopefully they're watching), I would post an erratum.

-MS= K


On Mon,= Apr 15, 2013 at 4:08 PM, Erik Wilde <dret@berkeley.edu> wro= te:
hello.


On 2013-04-15 15:59 , Francis Galiegue wrote:
I have a pretty complete RFC 6570 implementation, but these corner
cases are what prevent me from arguing that "yes, it obeys the RFC&quo= t;,
especially since some advanced tests out there seem to disagree with
my, and others', interpretation of this RFC.

i just want to add my support for francis' question. i am not as far do= wn the line implementing the spec, but i see myself asking the same questio= n once i am. and i am still interested how james (snell) solved this riddle= when adding support for the test case (where the test case behavior is har= d to explain from the spec language).

http://code.google.com/p/uri-templates/wiki/Implement= ations lists a number of implementations, and it would be interesting t= o know what they have been doing, and how they handle the test case in ques= tion.

thanks and cheers,


dret.

--
erik wilde | mailto:= dret@berkeley.edu =A0- =A0tel:+1-510-2061079 |
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0| UC Berkeley =A0- =A0School of Information (ISchool= ) |
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0| http://dret.net/netdret http://twitter.com/dret |

--f46d044306aad3001304da6e5b02--