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

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com> Wed, 07 December 2011 17:11 UTC

Return-Path: <msk@cloudmark.com>
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 9DD5821F8C63 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Dec 2011 09:11:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.324
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.324 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.325, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_73=0.6, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 VAZiStgcBddl for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Dec 2011 09:11:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDC6121F84FC for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 7 Dec 2011 09:11:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from malice.corp.cloudmark.com (172.22.10.71) by EXCH-HTCAS901.corp.cloudmark.com (172.22.10.73) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Wed, 7 Dec 2011 09:11:41 -0800
Received: from EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.1.74]) by malice.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.10.71]) with mapi; Wed, 7 Dec 2011 09:11:41 -0800
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>
To: IETF Apps Discuss <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 09:11:39 -0800
Thread-Topic: [apps-discuss] APPSDIR review of draft-gregorio-uritemplate-07
Thread-Index: Acy0v8QJRBlR9nyaTKu+lEP/2/rJaAAQxdRw
Message-ID: <F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C6C15456@EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com>
References: <89527141FD764100A4B43FEDBC6E027F@LENOVO47E041CF> <A253E377-4588-4A50-B837-8FE2E5082F15@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <A253E377-4588-4A50-B837-8FE2E5082F15@mnot.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "draft-gregorio-uritemplate.all@tools.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 17:11:43 -0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Mark Nottingham
> Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2011 1:08 AM
> To: Jiankang YAO
> Cc: draft-gregorio-uritemplate.all@tools.ietf.org; IETF Apps Discuss
> Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] APPSDIR review of draft-gregorio-uritemplate-07
> 
> > 1) In section 1.5.  Notational Conventions
> >
> > There is a repetition of definition of ALPHA, DIGIT, HEXDIG,......
> >
> > There is a discussion in IETF: we should not give the repetition of
> > definition of ABNF syntax if we can refer it to other documents. The
> > reason is that repetition may bring the errors or misunderstanding.
> >
> > 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?

I agree that re-stating definitions that are better replaced by references to them is the wiser move.

> > 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.

I don't think this is necessary.  The point of registries is to make something extensible without having to modify its defining document, such as adding header fields to email or MIME types, etc.  In this case, declaring a character as an operator that's not already an operator can alter the semantics of existing templates based on the initial RFC.  So if the set of operators is to change, I suggest that a new RFC would be required, obsoleting previous ones.

-MSK