IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [art] Question regarding RFC 8089

worley@ariadne.com (Dale R. Worley) Thu, 17 January 2019 02:50 UTC

Return-Path: <worley@alum.mit.edu>
X-Original-To: art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1D9C130F4C for <art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Jan 2019 18:50:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.934
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.934 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=comcastmailservice.net
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 fpOrTAZGE87L for <art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Jan 2019 18:50:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from resqmta-ch2-04v.sys.comcast.net (resqmta-ch2-04v.sys.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe21:29:69:252:207:36]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5A6DE130E9C for <art@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Jan 2019 18:50:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from resomta-ch2-05v.sys.comcast.net ([69.252.207.101]) by resqmta-ch2-04v.sys.comcast.net with ESMTP id jxfsgasfTfZ3SjxkugQh0W; Thu, 17 Jan 2019 02:50:08 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcastmailservice.net; s=20180828_2048; t=1547693408; bh=1Ag8tJmxJeOZ/KIQDj8VSzWyb+RAD4KX7RpCpTW1l4w=; h=Received:Received:Received:Received:From:To:Subject:Date: Message-ID; b=kaKFb1117yacdab7rrJPgWvuOWYio4vqc7cp3Pux+P8MvUAJ4HOjwHUXRdZwdexpk Ya7ASx93MtmvcvB+k5g8hNqcMBpBCevZ1njR2OlXpdGlyMV+/YNw/ul7AiDjI0UrUN vOLs4oskodIVBXrF9u0595q5Guq8HoLL1PbAYM/uUBhyQHhRZyFpsNL3GmK5RNC2Jr BkLJaoLMtMAugGB7vegp+DsPRLvTiYt70fpk8l55seZMHSHEr4gEgrSenQLZucWSIb 82kSnp7R+0A6j+p2lOon1YDa507fih+DZM7kY8JDg1U4CwIeeJkfAJKpYeOInh/S+r M77Y2BVytsFyg==
Received: from hobgoblin.ariadne.com ([IPv6:2601:192:4603:9471:222:fbff:fe91:d396]) by resomta-ch2-05v.sys.comcast.net with ESMTPA id jxkqgqU97PNBWjxkrgqs6R; Thu, 17 Jan 2019 02:50:07 +0000
X-Xfinity-VMeta: sc=0;st=legit
Received: from hobgoblin.ariadne.com (hobgoblin.ariadne.com [127.0.0.1]) by hobgoblin.ariadne.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id x0H2o3sR010014; Wed, 16 Jan 2019 21:50:03 -0500
Received: (from worley@localhost) by hobgoblin.ariadne.com (8.14.7/8.14.7/Submit) id x0H2o1ix009990; Wed, 16 Jan 2019 21:50:01 -0500
X-Authentication-Warning: hobgoblin.ariadne.com: worley set sender to worley@alum.mit.edu using -f
From: worley@ariadne.com
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
Cc: mnot@mnot.net, julian.reschke@gmx.de, art@ietf.org, matthew@kerwin.net.au, sbergman@redhat.com
In-Reply-To: <1FC45B47B703AED3FAE346F4@PSB> (john-ietf@jck.com)
Sender: worley@ariadne.com
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2019 21:50:01 -0500
Message-ID: <87y37k2e1y.fsf@hobgoblin.ariadne.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/51y1iHIWgnq998aJi7lOASZ6NIM>
Subject: Re: [art] Question regarding RFC 8089
X-BeenThere: art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Applications and Real-Time Area Discussion <art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/art>, <mailto:art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/art/>
List-Post: <mailto:art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/art>, <mailto:art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2019 02:50:11 -0000

John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> writes:
> However, Mark, it seems to me to be entirely appropriate, and
> consistent with 3986, for a scheme definition to state whether
> or not a fragment identifier is permitted.

I argue that the *scheme* does not define whether a fragment identifier
is permitted, but rather the media type of the referenced resource
defines it.

This does mean that if the scheme defines its URIs in such a way that
the referenced resource can never have a media type, or can never have a
media type that defines fragment identifiers, then the scheme
effectively forbids the use of fragment identifiers.  (sip: is an
example of such a scheme; its referenced resource can only be used
dynamically, and cannot be instantiated as a "media object".)

It may well be worth noting in a scheme definition whether one of these
cases hold, but it isn't *defining*.

Dale

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email