Re: [apps-discuss] proposing draft-farrell-ni as an appsarea wg item

[Larry Masinter <[e-mail]>]

perhaps IETF should consider adopting (or adapting) as IETF BCP some or all of


http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/ "Architecture of the World Wide Web" (W3C recommendation)

http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/SchemeProtocols.html URI Schemes and Web Protocols  (editor draft W3C TAG finding)

http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/whenToUseGet.html URIs, Addressability, and the use of HTTP GET and POST  (approved W3C TAG finding)


as they read on the advisability of inventing new URI schemes.  

While 4395bis is a work item of the IRI working group, the issues seem out of scope for the current working group, which IMHO should focus on the internationalization issues of 3987bis.


Larry
--
http://larry.masinter.net



________________________________________
From: [e-mail] [[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Mykyta Yevstifeyev [[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 10:14 PM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] proposing draft-farrell-ni as an appsarea wg item

28.07.2011 4:25, Linyi Tian 01 wrote:
>
> On 11-7-27 上午11:49, "Stephen Farrell" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Yesterday, I presented a draft [1] on a URI scheme for naming
>> stuff to the decade WG. There's interest in that there but
>> the idea behind this is really broader than just decade so
>> if there's interest here, doing this work in the appsarea WG
>> would I think be much better.
>>
>> The scheme is basically like HTTP URIs with one additional
>> thing, which is that it specifies a way to include a hash
>> function output in the name (and the related input, in case
>> you want to verify something later) which seems to me to be
>> a generally useful thing that various protocols could use
>> in various ways. Hence the idea of bringing it here.
> I am wondering how this would be used. Will it be used together with HTTP
> URIs? Is there any real life use case how I can use this URI.
+1. I think APPSAWG shouldn't accept this as WG item; I wouldn't also
recommend it for publication of it as AD-sponsored Individual submission
or in any other way as RFC.

There is no clear explanation of operations for new URI scheme. What
should the application do when resolving the 'ni' URI? What protocol
should be used? Also, <authority> includes <userinfo> and <port>, which
I don't how to be applied to 'ni' URI operations. I think that 'tag'
URIs, which only identify the resource (RFC 4151), are suitable for the
purposes of proposed 'ni' URI scheme.

Mykyta Yevstifeyev
>
>> So, comments appreciated,
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Stephen.
>>
>> [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-farrell-ni
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> apps-discuss mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
>
> _______________________________________________
> apps-discuss mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss

_______________________________________________
apps-discuss mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss