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

Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au> Tue, 13 January 2015 00:01 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 CC0BE1ACE1C for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Jan 2015 16:01:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.427
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.427 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, J_CHICKENPOX_15=0.6, 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 ydnAw9NLPVzt for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Jan 2015 16:01:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qg0-x22b.google.com (mail-qg0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c04::22b]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EED651ACE26 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 12 Jan 2015 16:01:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qg0-f43.google.com with SMTP id z107so20263648qgd.2 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 12 Jan 2015 16:01:25 -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=sUh9jJWe/Ce+zrbCLgeC6bXAPEmOgjJucKSw0SwjSj4=; b=c+tkLs9GX/KcP9MhVky7RoE68aNiVCVKOIIylcmQ2MAKebwohniQkpLgIx3TAWQBfj y8RGNwACilouanm1QxBMWoc2hGLO/CfehpTv94CHnrwIqBmXhXjVFTCw6S3ZL1tf8YOD +TWCF3ZSr/YEBbRI961HXAn8liLpWXJlPAfaAup+1vTxOdXo0IWimX7mt+hd8jFiz1r8 O18r8ySltMiZRMMHGK5GLXfn12BhIUSdgEw4LQTJX+BMxD2j8l1gVgh0bz2Cn9MZT9d9 Ckp+FI3ki2Rr2zlU+1RcN6RWumTP2JQKaxpHK8lo10gL1wJGK6OQpa0tuKI/i7HuqaVn fFOw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.140.97.102 with SMTP id l93mr50824660qge.48.1421107285134; Mon, 12 Jan 2015 16:01:25 -0800 (PST)
Sender: phluid61@gmail.com
Received: by 10.140.93.98 with HTTP; Mon, 12 Jan 2015 16:01:25 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <036301d02e94$15a95200$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
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>
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2015 10:01:25 +1000
X-Google-Sender-Auth: a-lV3sc0nS1_MMl8WKmTppAhd4o
Message-ID: <CACweHNBUkfkNsJtoj6eQFyo9FLDpdVB26D4w1NgNnV3PDnDjBw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au>
To: "t.petch" <ietfc@btconnect.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113a9e72eb17bf050c7d527b"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/apps-discuss/wyMLWcg30lKQ4pKbzZC79BoAowE>
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: Tue, 13 Jan 2015 00:01:31 -0000

On 13 January 2015 at 04:17, t.petch <ietfc@btconnect.com> wrote:

>
> My earlier note also speculated on the powers that be wanting a charter
> change, in which case I proposed
>
> 'I see the objective, were it to be codified as such, as updating the
> file: scheme from the level of RFC1738 to the level of RFC3986 and not
> attempting to go beyond that. '
>
> which remains what I will work toward.  Changes to RFC3986/RFC3987 I
> regard as out of scope, bordering on a DoS attack.
>
>
​Yes, that's essentially my goal. I've written this:

| The "file" URI scheme is woefully out of date. The document that defines
| it, RFC 1738, has been superseded by the generic URI syntax of RFC 3986,
| and its status is listed as "Obsolete". As such, the "file" URI scheme
| is viewed by many in the internet community as being without a current
| defining standard, and in need of updating to match current standards
| and implementations.
|
| This document defines an updated "file" URI scheme, promoting
| interoperability by being compatible with the generic syntax of
| RFC 3986, while enumerating commonly-encountered variations that have
| arisen during the scheme's long history of vague standardisation.
|
| Reviewers:
|
| * Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
| * Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
| * Sean Leonard <dev+ietf@seantek.com>


Does that suit?​ If so I'll give it to Murray to put in the wiki.


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