Re: [apps-discuss] draft-farrell-decade-ni-02 - we think this is done...

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

Hi Carsten,

On 04/05/2012 10:56 PM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
> ** Summary:
>
> This may seem nearly trivial, but upon looking closer really is awesome work, something truly only the IETF could create.

Thanks that's nice to hear.

> ** Nits:
>
> What is a "thing"?  (abstract)

:-) I like it saying "thing"

>
> The reference from section 3 to section 9.1 appears wrong -- I don't think 9.1 actually defines the registry required here.
> If this is referencing 9.3, please make sure there that the "ID" column is left empty (and thus no number consumed) if a number for the binary encoding is not needed.

Yep, should be 9.3 and I'll add something making the ID colum optional.

> I don't like the sentence
>     Since application
>     code often attempts to enforce such encoding, decoders MUST recognize
>     the use of URI escape encoding.
> and the following sentences too much -- yes, you MUST implement URI syntax, but not just for this reason.
> Add examples of percent-decoding (implementers implement from examples!).

Would gratefully accept such.

>
> How useful is:
>     If an application is presented with a HTTP(S) URL with "/.well-
>     known/ni/" as the start of its pathname component, then the reverse
>     mapping to an ni URI either including or excluding the authority
>     might produce an ni URI that is meaningful, but there is no guarantee
>     that this will be the case.
> Wouldn't it be more appropriate to mandate that /.well-known/ni *MUST* only be used in a way that makes this reverse mapping useful?

Not sure to be honest.

> s/URL Fragment/URL Segment/ (Fragment is confusing, as it means something specific in URIs.)

Sure.

>
> Maybe the human-readable form should be prefixed by "ni;" so it is easily recognizable.

Sure. Might have to re-do the ABNF to allow for that but do-able.

>
> http://www.tcd.ie/.well-known/ni/sha256/UyaQV-Ev4rdLoHyJJWCi11OHfrYv9E1aGQAlMO2X_-Q does not resolve (maybe you meant example.com?).

Ack.

> I believe for this to be the replacement of "unsecure links out of HTTPS", the secure media type issue must be solved in the base spec.
> (Oh, and is there ever a need to discuss content-coding in this context???)

Not sure what you mean by "solved" can you elaborate?


> Please re-spin http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hallambaker-decade-ni-params-00 and make sure that Martin's concern is addressed...

Will do. Probably over the weekend.

Cheers,
S.


> ** PS
>
> Again, I'm still in awe that a 10-page specification can solve so many problems in one fell swoop.
>
> Grüße, Carsten
>
>