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

Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org> Sat, 03 January 2015 17:03 UTC

Return-Path: <gk@ninebynine.org>
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 3A6191A9045 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 3 Jan 2015 09:03:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] 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 qhHy4WquLFbw for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 3 Jan 2015 09:03:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from relay11.mail.ox.ac.uk (relay11.mail.ox.ac.uk [129.67.1.162]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 155941A9026 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Sat, 3 Jan 2015 09:03:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp5.mail.ox.ac.uk ([163.1.2.207]) by relay11.mail.ox.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <gk@ninebynine.org>) id 1Y7S72-0004bt-aY; Sat, 03 Jan 2015 17:03:40 +0000
Received: from gklyne.plus.com ([80.229.154.156] helo=conina-wl.atuin.ninebynine.org) by smtp5.mail.ox.ac.uk with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <gk@ninebynine.org>) id 1Y7S72-0000Xu-GX; Sat, 03 Jan 2015 17:03:40 +0000
Message-ID: <54A820EA.20200@ninebynine.org>
Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2015 17:03:38 +0000
From: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
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>
In-Reply-To: <54A7E9F4.80406@intertwingly.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Oxford-Username: zool0635
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/apps-discuss/Z50HkfLBirKRGZvgbuyYfdGAy1s
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 17:03:55 -0000

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")

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.

#g
--