Re: [apps-discuss] Review of draft-ietf-appsawg-file-scheme

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Sat, 07 May 2016 09:32 UTC

Return-Path: <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
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 5DE5512D0D3; Sat, 7 May 2016 02:32:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 S4jWv9GHnemP; Sat, 7 May 2016 02:32:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.15.15]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 54285127058; Sat, 7 May 2016 02:32:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.178.20] ([93.217.64.107]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx002) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MBWo2-1apaeH0P7G-00AVLC; Sat, 07 May 2016 11:31:43 +0200
To: Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au>
References: <570D4C99.1030405@dcrocker.net> <CACweHND-OX+5okkJ+oE=6UN84x+CFtPBpMnU8HqaPbgQgJ_oWA@mail.gmail.com> <570E2510.4040408@ninebynine.org> <CACweHNCLS+QU2QveqYjkuPnDybbm-dtX9qQPsO4tTkgUoc5QYg@mail.gmail.com> <5710953E.5040505@gmx.de> <CACweHNDuDnP4P-4suUaFpS0OX-CbAYxn39jsZ3O_s-KYn=qbKw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Message-ID: <a16b7cf5-3635-a3cb-b743-850f4047f862@gmx.de>
Date: Sat, 7 May 2016 11:31:38 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CACweHNDuDnP4P-4suUaFpS0OX-CbAYxn39jsZ3O_s-KYn=qbKw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:K3dEMYkQU5dOUS6EVdXWjcvrCSvN5R5Bckpxd2guma5yF56Nzf8 c1TQrXO2ftqP133sKl4EiEmJXF3NKdwNqkqVfbv4Y1MtS2eClmo6zTPvP2/qmeOzhCOrwYl wWrRatSokn9zJtLPgdX4jNtlf7EPOTGSmIgyjba4AUUDrqOpvtRGOMyXePfKhdHpkSHX/lX usz75NeY+Nzvvw6VU6iug==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:AKBnBr6dh1I=:8lanrTHuI6aYwnMaLUmdIq QYIkEy54HKo6uYQZry7NfSlu1AOXkOWLZWpHiSvHWerm8wp+fhkpvu0DvmFGYw1Kvu+fqjgsq oEGCRyjeYMULYHTjm74nW+UctagrnpdYSGJQ296WNpDhJt99bAdjrUqueYVZe42CUSvjg5gTJ X/FjJIHfXiSxUKIVHoh67pPovsUlkaxw3rqRgvLYXvU9TXT5QTdhxQLKDXnqGl0duZOnpcrJC HPimNn/OUBOYvMUEY0WMXz8PsJF9gUH5Zf3+sg0aJPzqNesB6zDmftJ3D7SFU0RU/3oHPaXtv TCJDHhRKtYoUr0kC4fNPbXAtCHP9020TfGaOLni0LRi2T3Fwf/z4/LXNlFAVSK0INtF42P42w Xnjh7OH9NXpPTTCrurF3RwjFGNOsTbmsdgmhV9W8niDtCxtIXYf54O3Y9VQWxFZBlwCPQLfai +XgINn8hrx1xk0CpFmW1cW9Ojf2KcufrmRwduDOpkCWrqo0f+VRzjHaIvqeJfgEFJ7fx0CHaj N75tErKw4CSIg0RuUBk7in78IrGPlhZNl3Uz4ztmJni1fKyaX7l0GQlz+j+AANDTvnUiXe6Pa 9pGpqVtBa89ehyLV2VCSl1HEhLbTp5gVcMdgioRB2yD3FbeZ8rXv+vUW3EsfiqAEu7kpkQt7p 8KIBt2rZPCI6RLTzpio+gAFQaADohssjrP+xm/lw98zNUVDn8DMLAtX9MTBzoxDbcPNlYH5QG 4fFUkxeEKCjqfkaCkMSEJB0JotDlSiiRytI2DhL6oWHT41R5KFE6vDqjxzwaZnSYArEQEr8dr aNtHk8v
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/apps-discuss/Z8-i8fgmYZMdSEQ3P0Pc1MmwPlw>
Cc: IETF Apps Discuss <apps-discuss@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-appsawg-file-scheme@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Review of draft-ietf-appsawg-file-scheme
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 07 May 2016 09:32:37 -0000

On 2016-05-07 09:54, Matthew Kerwin wrote:
> Hi again everyone, sorry for the dead air. I've been trying to work on
> these last open comments but am not really sure how tp address them.
>
> On 15/04/2016 5:17 PM, "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de
> <mailto:julian.reschke@gmx.de>> wrote:
>>
>> On 2016-04-15 09:10, Matthew Kerwin wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Regarding security considerations, I've added some tentative hand-waving:
>>>
>>> ""
>>> Some file systems have case-sensitive file naming and some do not.
>>> Care must (?) be taken to avoid issues resulting from possibly
>>> unexpected aliasing from case-only differences between file paths or
>>> URIs.
>>> ""
>>>
>>> I'm open to suggestions for improvement (or deletion.)
>>
>>
>> case-insensitive (DOS?) < case-preserving (NTFS) < case-sensitive (others)
>>
>> ...so maybe mention all the three cases.
>>
>
> A case-based typo in a case-sensitive system gives an unwanted 404; an
> intentional difference in a case-insensitive system gives an unwanted
> 200. Case preservation doesn't really add anything to the issue, does it?

That's true, but maybe we can rephrase it in a way that it doesn't seem 
to neglect this case?

""
File systems vary in the way they handle case.
""

>> Best regards, Julian
>>
>> PS: it might also be good to touch Unicode normalization forms...
>>
>
> How's this?
>
> ""
> Care must be taken to avoid issues resulting from aliasing from
> mismatched encodings or Unicode equivalences.
> ""

That can't hurt.

I wonder whether we can say something useful about how to map Unicode 
code points into the file URI (that is, before percent-encoding the 
UTF-8 octets). Is it a good idea to apply unicode normalization at this 
step? (I don't know but maybe others do?)

Best regards, Julian