[apps-discuss] APPSDIR review of draft-gregorio-uritemplate-07

"Jiankang YAO" <yaojk@cnnic.cn> Wed, 07 December 2011 03:19 UTC

Return-Path: <yaojk@cnnic.cn>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06A0211E8080 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Dec 2011 19:19:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.081
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.081 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.165, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_73=0.6, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lLW-Fho9ci0C for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Dec 2011 19:19:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cnnic.cn (smtp.cnnic.cn []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 5C20C21F8BB6 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Dec 2011 19:19:16 -0800 (PST)
X-EYOUMAIL-SMTPAUTH: yaojk@cnnic.cn
Received: from unknown127.0.0.1 (HELO lenovo47e041cf) ( by with SMTP; Wed, 07 Dec 2011 11:18:57 +0800
Message-ID: <89527141FD764100A4B43FEDBC6E027F@LENOVO47E041CF>
From: "Jiankang YAO" <yaojk@cnnic.cn>
To: <apps-discuss@ietf.org>, <draft-gregorio-uritemplate.all@tools.ietf.org>
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 11:18:58 +0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157
Cc: iesg@ietf.org
Subject: [apps-discuss] APPSDIR review of draft-gregorio-uritemplate-07
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: Wed, 07 Dec 2011 03:19:17 -0000

I have been selected as the Applications Area Directorate reviewer 
for this draft (for background on appsdir, please 
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments 
you may receive. Please wait for direction from your document 
shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft.

Document: draft-gregorio-uritemplate-07
Title: URI Template

Reviewer: Jiankang Yao
Review Date: December 7, 2011


This draft is almost ready for publication as a Proposed Standard. But before publication, the following 
issues should be considered or addressed.

Major issues:

1) In section 1.5.  Notational Conventions

There is a repetition of definition of ALPHA, DIGIT, HEXDIG,......

There is a discussion in IETF: we should not give the repetition of definition of ABNF syntax if we can refer it to other documents. The reason is that repetition may bring the errors or misunderstanding.

Suggestion: for example, we just say "ALPHA, DIGIT are imported from RFC5234" instead of repeating
"ALPHA          =  %x41-5A / %x61-7A   ; A-Z / a-z"

2)   Normative reference [UNIV4] points to unicode version 4.0, but the current version of unicode is version 6. 

Suggestion or comments: Does this document apply to unicode version 4 only? or we can update the reference to unicode version 6?

3)Normative reference [1] points to <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/uri/> which is maillist archive and can not be Normative. 
suggestion: delete it or move it to information reference.

4)There is a lot of "A URI Template" in section 1, but there is no precise definition of "URI Template" in section 1. The definition seems to appear on section 2.
Comments: If the readers can understand it clearly, the definition should appear first.

5)The abstract said "This specification defines the URI Template syntax and the process
   for expanding a URI Template into a URI reference".
but in section 2, it said that "we define the URI-Template syntax in terms of the ABNF for Level 4".
Suggestion: if we just define the syntax for level 4, it should mention it in the Abstract and introduction.

Discussion issues:
1)No IANA actions are required by this document. 

comments or suggestions:I suggest something in the document to be added to IANA, for example,the operators in section 2 and 3 of this document.
 If we register these operators in IANA, it will help the future use of these operators/characters.

 for example:

      +   Reserved character strings;

      #   Fragment identifiers prefixed by "#";

      .   Name labels or extensions prefixed by ".";

      /   Path segments prefixed by "/";

      ;   Path parameter name or name=value pairs prefixed by ";";

      ?   Query component beginning with "?" and consisting of
          name=value pairs separated by "&"; and,

      &   Continuation of query-style &name=value pairs within
          a literal query component.

   The operator characters equals ("="), comma (","), exclamation ("!"),
   at-sign ("@"), and pipe ("|") are reserved for future extensions.

Minor Issues:

1) "after UTF-8 encoding" in the first paragraph In section 1.2 Levels and Expression Types
 need a reference to UTF-8

2) In section 1.3.  Design Considerations
  where " Mechanisms similar to URI Templates have been defined within several
   specifications, including WSDL, WADL and OpenSearch."
  What is WSDL WADL and OpenSearch? 
  Suggestion: need a reference or explaination for these acronyms or special words.

3) In the 4th paragraph of section 1.6,Normalization Form C needs a reference.