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

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Thu, 08 December 2011 06:45 UTC

Return-Path: <mnot@mnot.net>
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 B057D21F8B1A for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Dec 2011 22:45:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.107
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.107 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.508, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 wK2slg3NqpdA for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Dec 2011 22:45:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mxout-08.mxes.net (mxout-08.mxes.net [216.86.168.183]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2972E21F8B16 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 7 Dec 2011 22:45:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mnot-mini.mnot.net (unknown [118.209.121.109]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 39DA850A64; Thu, 8 Dec 2011 01:45:43 -0500 (EST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1251.1)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=GB2312
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
X-Priority: 3
In-Reply-To: <583806B95F08410DBEFE3E04E79D28A4@LENOVO47E041CF>
Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2011 17:45:39 +1100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <39251BD7-21FD-48C4-A128-B578AD39D83D@mnot.net>
References: <89527141FD764100A4B43FEDBC6E027F@LENOVO47E041CF> <A253E377-4588-4A50-B837-8FE2E5082F15@mnot.net> <583806B95F08410DBEFE3E04E79D28A4@LENOVO47E041CF>
To: Jiankang YAO <yaojk@cnnic.cn>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1251.1)
Cc: draft-gregorio-uritemplate.all@tools.ietf.org, IETF Apps Discuss <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [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: Thu, 08 Dec 2011 06:45:51 -0000

On 08/12/2011, at 5:41 PM, Jiankang YAO wrote:
>> 
>> Suggestion: for example, we just say "ALPHA, DIGIT are imported from RFC5234" instead of repeating
>> "ALPHA          =  %x41-5A / %x61-7A   ; A-Z / a-z"
> 
> ==>Is this a discussion that's already taken place?
> 
> yes. the rule has been followed by EAI WG.

Do you have a reference? I.e., is this an IESG ruling, or something that was decided in that WG? As has mentioned, taking the approach you outline will result in ABNF errors.


> 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.
> 
> ==>Could you make a concrete proposal here?
> 
> what is "URI Template" should be defined in section 1.
> there is no precise or clear definition of "URI Template" in section 1.

I was hoping for something more substantial. Let me take another look at it...

Regards,


--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/