Re: [apps-discuss] Review of draft-ietf-appsawg-file-scheme

Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org> Wed, 13 April 2016 09:55 UTC

Return-Path: <gk@ninebynine.org>
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 C006D12D825; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 02:55:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.22
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.22 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 faDu4dVy5KL3; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 02:55:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relay11.mail.ox.ac.uk (relay11.mail.ox.ac.uk [129.67.1.162]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3F55C12D806; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 02:55:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp6.mail.ox.ac.uk ([163.1.2.206]) by relay11.mail.ox.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <gk@ninebynine.org>) id 1aqHVf-0006ud-aT; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 10:54:55 +0100
Received: from modemcable171.142-37-24.static.videotron.ca ([24.37.142.171] helo=[192.168.55.103]) by smtp6.mail.ox.ac.uk with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <gk@ninebynine.org>) id 1aqHVf-0003na-Jq; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 10:54:55 +0100
Message-ID: <570E176B.1030608@ninebynine.org>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 10:54:51 +0100
From: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au>, Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net>
References: <570D4C99.1030405@dcrocker.net> <CACweHND-OX+5okkJ+oE=6UN84x+CFtPBpMnU8HqaPbgQgJ_oWA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CACweHND-OX+5okkJ+oE=6UN84x+CFtPBpMnU8HqaPbgQgJ_oWA@mail.gmail.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/zs90mXZJ96CvQM9qLFeKOq2l1eQ>
Cc: draft-ietf-appsawg-file-scheme@ietf.org, Apps Discuss <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Review of draft-ietf-appsawg-file-scheme
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 13 Apr 2016 09:55:03 -0000

Hi Dave, Matthew,

On 13/04/2016 09:28, Matthew Kerwin wrote:
>> The draft began as an individual effort, in June 2013, went through many
>> >revisions, and was adopted by AppsAWG in January 2015, and has had a number
>> >of revisions.  I note a 9/26/2014 (pre-AppsAWG) comment from Daniel
>> >Stenberg:
>> >
>> >      "I would rather have a new spec straighten up and tighten the
>> >      language somewhat so that we can get a stricter interpretation of
>> >      how afile://  is supposed to work."
>> >
>> >which, in spite of the many document revisions, unfortunately matches my
>> >own assessment of the current draft.
>> >
>> >
> This is a surprise, since this comment from Daniel was what triggered the
> complete restructure of the draft into its current form (with a relatively
> short normative body, and a bunch of informational stuff in appendices.)

This is my perception too.  My take is that the main body of the document does 
now cover core material that can be followed quite strictly.

But because of file:'s long history and accretions, it seemed helpful to have 
*informative* material describing variations that might be in the wild - I think 
moving these to the appendixes and clearly marking these as informative keeps 
them clearly separated from the core material about how it should be used.

#g
--