Re: [art] Question regarding RFC 8089

Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org> Sun, 20 January 2019 16:19 UTC

Return-Path: <gk@ninebynine.org>
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 319E612785F for <art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 20 Jan 2019 08:19:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] 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 gO-L-BD6hZ4D for <art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 20 Jan 2019 08:19:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from relay14.mail.ox.ac.uk (relay14.mail.ox.ac.uk [163.1.2.162]) (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 B9864127598 for <art@ietf.org>; Sun, 20 Jan 2019 08:19:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp4.mail.ox.ac.uk ([129.67.1.207]) by relay14.mail.ox.ac.uk with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <gk@ninebynine.org>) id 1glFoR-0005H7-mC; Sun, 20 Jan 2019 16:19:08 +0000
Received: from gklyne38.plus.com ([81.174.129.24] helo=sasharissa.local) by smtp4.mail.ox.ac.uk with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <gk@ninebynine.org>) id 1glFoP-0007Z9-Fg; Sun, 20 Jan 2019 16:19:05 +0000
Message-ID: <5C449F78.7020402@ninebynine.org>
Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2019 16:19:04 +0000
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: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
CC: art@ietf.org, "\"Martin J. Dürst\"" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, "Dale R. Worley" <worley@ariadne.com>
References: <874la63apq.fsf@hobgoblin.ariadne.com> <d5943dc6-7b48-1406-3822-f32fad42ed5e@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <57CF13AD-8430-43CB-8051-4217485F3842@gbiv.com> <004501d4af67$4a4e1330$deea3990$@acm.org> <1B8D07B3-CD56-4CD5-90B2-75D29220245D@gbiv.com>
In-Reply-To: <1B8D07B3-CD56-4CD5-90B2-75D29220245D@gbiv.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Oxford-Username: zool0635
X-Oxmail-Spam-Status: score=0.0 tests=none
X-Oxmail-Spam-Level: /
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/CKzbhRMHPuNd1GL8vPrQSHVUxgA>
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: Sun, 20 Jan 2019 16:19:17 -0000

FWIW, the EMWAC (Edinburgh Uni) web server implemented proxying of non-HTTP URIs 
back in about 1998.  I recall this capability being used by a company I worked 
for to implement content scanning of material accessed from FTP servers.

Generally, I think it was quite common back then to put ftp:... into a browser 
bar and have that retrieved via HTTP and a proxy server.

#g
--


On 18/01/2019 22:29, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>> On Jan 18, 2019, at 11:52 AM, Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org> wrote:
>>
>> This bit that HTTP can be used by a proxy to resolve any URLs, not just http: and https: ones, is weakly supported by a passing MAY.
>> There isn't sufficient evidence of independent interoperable implementations (based on specification) for such a major extension to the "range of the HTTP dereference function".
>
> Hi Larry,
>
> We deployed this in 1994.
>
>     http://1997.webhistory.org/www.lists/www-talk.1994q1/0549.html
>
> It is still implemented in many current proxying clients.
>
>> Yes, theoretically, something like this COULD be specified without breaking HTTP,
>
> It has been specified in HTTP/1.x since 1995.
>
>> but that's different from saying that scheme registrations can't restrict the use of fragment identifiers with URLs of that scheme.    I think that if you want to allow fragments in URLs of a given scheme, the scheme definition should define how it should be treated by fetch, and if such use requires generation of "some metadata document", how those metadata documents work with fragment identifiers should be defined (by their MIME type's registration, I suppose).
>
> It is not a question of "want" or "should be treated", nor even a question of whether
> or not is is a good idea.  It is a fact.  That's how HTTP was designed to work.
>
>> So I'd say no, you can't use a fragment identifier with a "mailto:" URL. Or a "sip:" one. But ok with "data:", and even "ftp" and "file".
>
> I can. I still remember implementing it in libwww-perl.
>
> .....Roy
>
> _______________________________________________
> art mailing list
> art@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/art
>