IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [art] Question regarding RFC 8089

Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu> Tue, 18 December 2018 18:49 UTC

Return-Path: <pkyzivat@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 BE1221311CC for <art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Dec 2018 10:49:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-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 V--vbj2bhZ1e for <art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Dec 2018 10:49:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from alum-mailsec-scanner-7.mit.edu (alum-mailsec-scanner-7.mit.edu [18.7.68.19]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 317AB1200B3 for <art@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Dec 2018 10:49:35 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: 12074413-67bff70000005c2a-12-5c19413dc4ec
Received: from outgoing-alum.mit.edu (outgoing-alum.mit.edu [18.7.68.33]) (using TLS with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by alum-mailsec-scanner-7.mit.edu (Symantec Messaging Gateway) with SMTP id B0.37.23594.D31491C5; Tue, 18 Dec 2018 13:49:34 -0500 (EST)
Received: from PaulKyzivatsMBP.localdomain (c-24-62-227-142.hsd1.ma.comcast.net [24.62.227.142]) (authenticated bits=0) (User authenticated as pkyzivat@ALUM.MIT.EDU) by outgoing-alum.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id wBIInXen009088 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for <art@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Dec 2018 13:49:33 -0500
To: art@ietf.org
References: <f49638dc-4a0e-e03d-7e91-b968a1217679@redhat.com> <CACweHNBps_O0JqAUFj5FD3V+LzbTWUKNKuFzKk82WR+33b8seA@mail.gmail.com> <45967886-f3f4-12b8-75b7-2b9199e59bfa@gmx.de> <114E58B9-0CB4-4B98-B6C8-D2B84879EE6B@mnot.net> <1FC45B47B703AED3FAE346F4@PSB> <19f1968e-e110-e26f-7639-bf57605f940e@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <43cc02ad-9ff0-bdd6-47a7-ae7ed24f0921@nostrum.com> <1BC0BB52B4D6D8E19665949A@PSB>
From: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
Message-ID: <c3075627-59d6-c398-8e07-f22f37dca1bf@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2018 13:49:32 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1BC0BB52B4D6D8E19665949A@PSB>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFnrPIsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUixO6iqGvnKBljsPI6p8WKux4OjB5Llvxk CmCM4rJJSc3JLEst0rdL4Mr41bufueARW8XFuSdZGxg3sHYxcnJICJhI/LnymbmLkYtDSOAg k8TW2/sYIZwvTBJ/77SBVQkL6Ek8mTeRCcQWERCQ6D13iB2iaBqzxPRpC5hBEmwCWhJzDv1n AbF5Bewlfi94xgZiswioSrSceQhmiwqkSfztXMIIUSMocXLmE7B6TgFtiRPbToPVMAuYSczb /JAZwhaXuPVkPhOELS+x/e0c5gmM/LOQtM9C0jILScssJC0LGFlWMcol5pTm6uYmZuYUpybr Ficn5uWlFuma6+VmluilppRuYoSEpfAOxl0n5Q4xCnAwKvHwdihIxgixJpYVV+YeYpTkYFIS 5WUyBArxJeWnVGYkFmfEF5XmpBYfYpTgYFYS4b1VKhEjxJuSWFmVWpQPk5LmYFES522YyBcj JJCeWJKanZpakFoEk5Xh4FCS4L1qDzRUsCg1PbUiLTOnBCHNxMEJMpwHaPgRO6Aa3uKCxNzi zHSI/ClGXY49X5tmMAux5OXnpUqJ894EKRIAKcoozYObA0snrxjFgd4S5t0Oso4HmIrgJr0C WsIEtCRnCxPIkpJEhJRUA+Os94JhN2Wt+a56Xo2b5zZpZ4m55/R/DfplTROWimuJ7Wa+Vccj sf/tq11mClNM2Pey5/OZzLywZKvSXMHv72c3n1sWsE9lR67Gmzq+D9M1X2p+2Gv89BonY6zv 72m3j1ybK10+fb+pu+DcDefaprzf9idJP9L3b9bq+xyLz/debTMpyG4IjWRWYinOSDTUYi4q TgQA0PQ9jgIDAAA=
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/yLyTW8rD2nicOD_7NKl23taOaWQ>
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: Tue, 18 Dec 2018 18:49:37 -0000

On 12/18/18 12:48 PM, John C Klensin wrote:

> In addition to the above, URNs add another complexity to the
> discussion: RFC 2141 rather explicitly forbade fragments (and
> specifically the "#" character) for use in "urn:" URIs,
> reserving that character for future use.   Objections were not
> raised at the time and 3986 does not update 2141 to change that
> rule, so, while the default may be "yes", there is certainly
> precedent for schemes banning the use of fragments.  (Of course,
> for URNs, RFC 8141 removed that restriction but did it
> explicitly.)

Perhaps this should have simply been considered a statement of fact 
rather than a normative requirement. Since the URN is a name rather than 
a value, there is nothing for a fragment to reference.

Similar arguments would apply to TEL, SIP, and some of the others.

	Thanks,
	Paul

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email