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

Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org> Wed, 07 December 2011 21:18 UTC

Return-Path: <GK@ninebynine.org>
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 770801F0C45 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Dec 2011 13:18:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_73=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 iKi+9+y2S52a for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Dec 2011 13:18:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from relay1.mail.ox.ac.uk (relay1.mail.ox.ac.uk [129.67.1.165]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 956311F0C3B for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 7 Dec 2011 13:18:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp2.mail.ox.ac.uk ([163.1.2.205]) by relay1.mail.ox.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.75) (envelope-from <GK@ninebynine.org>) id 1RYOsj-0002fj-5v; Wed, 07 Dec 2011 21:18:25 +0000
Received: from gklyne.plus.com ([80.229.154.156] helo=Eskarina.local) by smtp2.mail.ox.ac.uk with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <GK@ninebynine.org>) id 1RYOsj-0006uY-84; Wed, 07 Dec 2011 21:18:25 +0000
Message-ID: <4EDFAE8C.6050807@ninebynine.org>
Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2011 18:21:00 +0000
From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; rv:6.0) Gecko/20110812 Thunderbird/6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
References: <89527141FD764100A4B43FEDBC6E027F@LENOVO47E041CF> <A253E377-4588-4A50-B837-8FE2E5082F15@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <A253E377-4588-4A50-B837-8FE2E5082F15@mnot.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Oxford-Username: zool0635
Cc: IETF Apps Discuss <apps-discuss@ietf.org>, draft-gregorio-uritemplate.all@tools.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: Wed, 07 Dec 2011 21:18:36 -0000

On 07/12/2011 09:07, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> 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.
> I think that's worth discussion, but my initial reaction is that a registry here will make interoperability much more difficult, and possibly harm adoption.
>

I agree that this does not seem an appropriate case for an IANA registry.

(a) The design is very closely coupled with URI syntax, which IMO makes it more 
usable.  A registry might encourage divergence.

(b) Addition of new "operators" could potentially have deep impact on template 
handling code, and such might be encouraged by allowing IANA registration of 
extensions.  I think this could harm interoperability if extensions are registered.

(c) The overhead of creating and managing a registry doesn't seem to be 
justified by any clear benefit.

#g
--