IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [apps-discuss] Scope of RFC3986 and successor - what is a URI?

Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org> Sat, 17 January 2015 15:31 UTC

Return-Path: <gk@ninebynine.org>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F0561ACDAF for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 17 Jan 2015 07:31:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, J_CHICKENPOX_37=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id E8hLBa-Fzhg4 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 17 Jan 2015 07:31:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from relay13.mail.ox.ac.uk (relay13.mail.ox.ac.uk [129.67.1.166]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBAEE1ACDB7 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Sat, 17 Jan 2015 07:31:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp4.mail.ox.ac.uk ([129.67.1.207]) by relay13.mail.ox.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <gk@ninebynine.org>) id 1YCVLI-0003Cc-gS for apps-discuss@ietf.org; Sat, 17 Jan 2015 15:31:16 +0000
Received: from gklyne.plus.com ([80.229.154.156] helo=cheery.atuin.ninebynine.org) by smtp4.mail.ox.ac.uk with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <gk@ninebynine.org>) id 1YCVLH-0001Xq-G3 for apps-discuss@ietf.org; Sat, 17 Jan 2015 15:31:16 +0000
Message-ID: <54BA8043.90501@ninebynine.org>
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2015 15:31:15 +0000
From: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: apps-discuss@ietf.org
References: <20140926010029.26660.82167.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <54B16C2B.9050604@seantek.com> <54B17BBE.4000900@intertwingly.net> <54B18B61.8010308@seantek.com> <54B19435.8070401@intertwingly.net> <54B1B211.3050807@seantek.com> <54B1B682.3070609@intertwingly.net> <012001d02d91$6ec42300$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <54B2781C.4040505@intertwingly.net> <018e01d02dc6$1d03b0a0$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <54B2CC75.5080900@intertwingly.net> <54B79930.3070009@ninebynine.org> <54B7AEC2.9010109@intertwingly.net> <CAKHUCzz=jZAF-i2_pwGpkER5vNhv95CMwdBCMwigPJ0FA_t4_A@mail.gmail.com> <54B7BD4A.1090803@intertwingly.net> <54B7CF28.7060408@gmx.de> <54B7D605.2060307@intertwingly.net> <f5boaq0gdw5.fsf@troutbeck.inf.ed.ac.uk> <54B806A2.8020803@intertwingly.net>, <CAKHUCzzN4Eu6R_f2Sf8EtiAp-8w3ds5Yp3-PBHK+B0wGRxEtmw@mail.gmail.com> <54b9381b.8ca1e00a.243f.ffffcae4@mx.google.com>, <54B93CB4.7060805@intertwingly.net> <54b94026.5229e00a.77ab.ffffd0d7@mx.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <54b94026.5229e00a.77ab.ffffd0d7@mx.google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Oxford-Username: zool0635
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/apps-discuss/oCWCkYABigrnGsc22QDZIFx3_tM>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Scope of RFC3986 and successor - what is a URI?
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Sat, 17 Jan 2015 15:31:20 -0000

On 16/01/2015 16:42, darrel.miller@gmail.com wrote:
>> It is not a valid IP-literal, but it is a valid reg-name (at least
>> according to the ABNF):
>>
>>       host        = IP-literal / IPv4address / reg-name
>>      reg-name    = *( unreserved / pct-encoded / sub-delims )
>>
>> See also:
>>
>>   https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ietf-w3c/2014Dec/0075.html
>
>
>
> That is unfortunate.  Thanks for pointing that out, I was not aware of that potential for ambiguity.

(Aside, not central to the main discussion...)

FWIW, RFC3986 is explicit that the formal syntax is ambiguous, and describes use 
of a "first-match-wins" algorithm to obtain an unambiguous parse.  (Personally, 
I'm not a fan of this approach, but I don't see it as a great problem.)

Cf. https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986#section-3.2.2

#g
--

v2.45.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status