Re: [art] Revising BCP56: On the use of HTTP as a Substrate

[Dave Thaler <[e-mail]>]

So if you have a resource that is served over multiple other protocols (ftp, coap, whatever) but NOT http,
W3C would tell people to use the HTTP scheme anyway?  

http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/SchemeProtocols.html#useNaturalProtocol says:
4.2.1 G4. Serve using the protocol associated with the URI scheme

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Nottingham [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Sunday, July 16, 2017 10:16 AM
To: Dave Thaler <[e-mail]>
Cc: Adam Roach <[e-mail]>; Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail]>; Patrick McManus <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [art] Revising BCP56: On the use of HTTP as a Substrate


> On 16 Jul 2017, at 10:11 am, Dave Thaler <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> I think 4.3.2 is problematic as currently worded.  For example,
>> Using other schemes to denote an application using HTTP makes it more 
>> difficult to use with existing implementations (e.g., Web browsers),  
>> and is likely to fail to meet the requirements of [RFC7595].
> 
> The "URI Schemes and Web Protocols" document Henry pointed to argues 
> for separate URI schemes for different protocols (ftp, http, coap, etc.), e.g. "G4. Serve using the protocol associated with the URI scheme".
> 
> I think the "HTTP as a Substrate" document is worded as if the only protocol an app supports is HTTP,
> which is not the case.   If an application defines higher layer semantics where HTTP and something else
> can both be used as transports (the topic of 
> draft-thaler-appsawg-multi-transport-uris discussion), than 4.3.2 
> would imply that one must use multiple URIs for the same transport, rather than having one higher-layer URI for the application-layer protocol or semantics.
> 
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3
> .org%2FTR%2Fwebarch%2F%23uri-aliases&data=02%7C01%7Cdthaler%40microsoft.com%7Cf5e1aabcbc1b4a7a6fb708d4cc22eea2%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636357897782919498&sdata=klbb40TomYZ216cxDZFHGBh1EiXMaVc2pmT4%2FjsXKv4%3D&reserved=0 discusses multiple URIs for the same resource and has recommendations like "A URI owner SHOULD NOT associate arbitrarily different URIs with the same resource."
> 
> Thus that would argue that apps should have higher-layer URIs for 
> concepts that are not specific to HTTP, since there may be different 
> URIs that differ by existing protocol (and URI scheme).  As such, 
> 4.3.2 seems problematic since it seems to be saying that that's bad and apps should use different URIs with the same resource.

W3C doesn't share the IETF's aversion to using HTTP to identify higher-level concepts. The "Web" way that has emerged is to use HTTP to discover more about the other protocols as necessary (as we see with H2 and now QUIC negotiation).



--
Mark Nottingham   https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.mnot.net%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cdthaler%40microsoft.com%7Cf5e1aabcbc1b4a7a6fb708d4cc22eea2%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636357897782929506&sdata=hLIqYngKJ4NFkbB3zJl6Pf6jeL0dgW%2FkQiFIiWxFtT8%3D&reserved=0