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

Peter Saint-Andre <> Fri, 09 December 2011 19:38 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 024E521F858D for <>; Fri, 9 Dec 2011 11:38:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.345
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.345 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.746, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 29s5eVgKUCot for <>; Fri, 9 Dec 2011 11:38:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50EEF21F844F for <>; Fri, 9 Dec 2011 11:38:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (unknown []) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 245B142381; Fri, 9 Dec 2011 12:46:14 -0700 (MST)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2011 12:38:49 -0700
From: Peter Saint-Andre <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Mark Nottingham <>
References: <89527141FD764100A4B43FEDBC6E027F@LENOVO47E041CF> <> <583806B95F08410DBEFE3E04E79D28A4@LENOVO47E041CF> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.3
OpenPGP: url=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: IETF Apps Discuss <>,
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] APPSDIR review of draft-gregorio-uritemplate-07
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2011 19:38:52 -0000

<hat type='individual'/>

On 12/7/11 11:45 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> 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.

As far as I know, there is no "rule" here.

>> 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...

Why not just copy the first sentence of the Abstract?

   A URI Template is a compact sequence of characters for describing a
   range of Uniform Resource Identifiers through variable expansion.

I suggest adding it to the start of this paragraph:

   URI Templates provide a mechanism for abstracting a space of resource
   identifiers such that the variable parts can be easily identified and
   described.  URI templates can have many uses, including discovery of
   available services, configuring resource mappings, defining computed
   links, specifying interfaces, and other forms of programmatic
   interaction with resources.  For example, the above resources could
   be described by the following URI templates:


Peter Saint-Andre