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

[Sam Ruby <[e-mail]>]

On 01/16/2015 08:05 AM, Matthew Kerwin wrote:
> Latching on to some details:
>
> On 16 January 2015 at 08:55, Sam Ruby <[e-mail]
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>              An example of something that is not a conforming URL, but
>         is both a
>              valid URI and a valid IRI:
>
>         http://257.257.257.257/
>
>         OK... I don't think that's valid, but it's probably valid
>         according to
>         the ABNF only (ignoring the prose). I think specifying that in the
>         formal syntax would be uncontentious - in
>         fact, draft-ietf-iri-3987bis-13 already makes this change.
>
>     Is is indeed valid (this was discussed recently on this very list).
>     I would hope that it is uncontentious.

Correction: it was on a different list.

> I know it's slightly aside, but do you have a pointer to that
> discussion? Just scanning Appendix A of RFC 3986, it appears we would
> parse the authority as a reg-name, except that Section 3.2.2 then says:
>
> ] A registered name intended for lookup in the DNS uses the syntax
> ] defined in Section 3.5 of [RFC1034] and Section 2.1 of [RFC1123].
>
> and RFC 1123 goes on to say:
>
> ] ... a valid host name can never
> ] have the dotted-decimal form #.#.#.#, since at least the
> ] highest-level component label will be alphabetic.
>
> I may be a bit over my head here. Maybe that's something that could do
> with clarification.

Here's where my statement that URIs like the above were valid was 
pointed out to be incorrect:

https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ietf-w3c/2014Dec/0075.html

- Sam Ruby