Re: [apps-discuss] I-D Action: draft-ietf-appsawg-file-scheme-00.txt

Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au> Wed, 14 January 2015 22:59 UTC

Return-Path: <phluid61@gmail.com>
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 10E401ACF58 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Jan 2015 14:59:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.027
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.027 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 2od1yRjcSx7G for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Jan 2015 14:59:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qg0-x22a.google.com (mail-qg0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c04::22a]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 138C71ACF54 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Jan 2015 14:59:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qg0-f42.google.com with SMTP id q108so9393102qgd.1 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Jan 2015 14:59:15 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=4VY93sbSKX+ExF3P+RAkMuIJaPlrjgu9e/nKbNsRHDY=; b=xWx/p6SdHTtRJ3bWFvCOVJSPJoff4MFOTBVd5AuN3E77Rq3mnZgawC6Wjz9IC5Ho6N qd69U+k2G1z4U/Kt9UlcSRecLLHogYXF8ExNhCTNkUJh4+Gc8u1iQjmdz00y0WVwdUQs 7Oo2rcy0xLRN/+Kb59BzMS2CeIJZiGPXxDYsLu8TD6eqFspS4LeWi4eKTDk5fV+op98f 2JSwVNP3lxM1YMcFo/jNcws9otke90OXZyBP1iCNUeUmjf30kXBP4Y+VWXzDhjBk8NSQ xIskwaask+zSpiITL1kG0mFkPyS0khZtvIPQzZjkYeCbxlvwpeOLdIOFBn93pfS6zwVZ umtA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.229.70.133 with SMTP id d5mr11577532qcj.2.1421276355181; Wed, 14 Jan 2015 14:59:15 -0800 (PST)
Sender: phluid61@gmail.com
Received: by 10.140.93.98 with HTTP; Wed, 14 Jan 2015 14:59:15 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <54B6EF74.3040300@ninebynine.org>
References: <20150112011216.17665.13268.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CACweHNBmr2eJO9p1QGuwR8jWS4RXNZtxQP1cxxF+1ZywqiH=Kg@mail.gmail.com> <CAL0qLwZfaXuAzRj0FHot2V1LLdQR7nXFbd0BK-BFA86GHJmgKg@mail.gmail.com> <036301d02e94$15a95200$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <CACweHNBUkfkNsJtoj6eQFyo9FLDpdVB26D4w1NgNnV3PDnDjBw@mail.gmail.com> <54B6EF74.3040300@ninebynine.org>
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2015 08:59:15 +1000
X-Google-Sender-Auth: oJB1QlnLOZdy8UofMXWd2bHqbpQ
Message-ID: <CACweHND4Hs4yAqiwYp_XDLYTwPKhRFMTgjFQgqDy_pH-KQkO3A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au>
To: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113390064755ae050ca4b0ef"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/apps-discuss/tlTvkoDqgCIx_Q5QDcyqiGCErFY>
Cc: IETF Apps Discuss <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] I-D Action: draft-ietf-appsawg-file-scheme-00.txt
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: Wed, 14 Jan 2015 22:59:18 -0000

On 15 January 2015 at 08:36, Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org> wrote:

>
> I think there are two useful facets for the putative revised file URI spec:
>
> 1.  A normative syntax specification that defines a subset of RFC 3986 URI
> syntax that will be considered valid file: URI strings, and sufficient to
> cover common file: URI usage in the wild where it does not conflict with
> RFC3986.  I think we need to be very careful about extending the scope of
> any normative specification beyond this.
>
> 2. An informative aspect that describes some common file: URI usages and
> how they map onto underlying file systems.  This may reference proprietary
> documents, but since such material would be informative they wouldn't be
> normative references.
>
>
I think it's good to add specific deliverables like this. I'm pretty sure
the current text at <
https://github.com/phluid61/internet-drafts/blob/master/file-scheme/mini-charter.md>
captures everything we want to say, and doesn't leave anything too vague.
Not too long?




> ​
> ​

​
> BTW, I'll review, but I can't promise to be always timely.
> ​
>
>
I'm pretty sure lots of people are in the same boat. As long as all
discussion happens here on the list, I don't doubt there'll be more than
three people with opinions on most aspects of the text.


Cheers
-- 
  Matthew Kerwin
  http://matthew.kerwin.net.au/