Re: [core] feedback on resource-directory and mirror-proxy (and base) drafts

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Fri, 09 March 2012 16:14 UTC

Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.org>
X-Original-To: core@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: core@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5633721F8681 for <core@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Mar 2012 08:14:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.308
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.308 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.059, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0J+WasKbD5L8 for <core@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Mar 2012 08:14:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from informatik.uni-bremen.de (mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c9::12]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D40C21F853B for <core@ietf.org>; Fri, 9 Mar 2012 08:14:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at informatik.uni-bremen.de
Received: from smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de [134.102.224.120]) by informatik.uni-bremen.de (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q29GDPIr007585; Fri, 9 Mar 2012 17:13:25 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [192.168.217.117] (p5B3E6A4A.dip.t-dialin.net [91.62.106.74]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9C7CD7DD; Fri, 9 Mar 2012 17:13:24 +0100 (CET)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1257)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <4F59F906.4080906@piuha.net>
Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2012 17:13:23 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <6144B86F-0CAF-47E9-BE60-16647BFF22DA@tzi.org>
References: <4F59F906.4080906@piuha.net>
To: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1257)
Cc: Heidi-Maria Rissanen <heidi-maria.rissanen@ericsson.com>, core <core@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [core] feedback on resource-directory and mirror-proxy (and base) drafts
X-BeenThere: core@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Constrained RESTful Environments \(CoRE\) Working Group list" <core.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/core>, <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/core>
List-Post: <mailto:core@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/core>, <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2012 16:14:03 -0000

On Mar 9, 2012, at 13:35, Jari Arkko wrote:

> Is Location-Path a segment or the full path? 

A single Location-Path Option is a (percent-decoded) segment of the URI offered as the Location.
The name of the option is a bit historical (but Location-Path-Segment or Uri-Path-Segment are a bit long).

When talking about the value of the sequence of options, it is a bit more intuitive to instead talk about the implied URI.  Notated in a HTTP header style:

Location: /foo/bar

is a short form of »two Location-Path options "foo" and "bar"«.

Yes, we need to get consistent here -- either use that notation and explain it or use the actual option values.  I still like to talk about /.well-known/core etc. instead of saying [{"Location-Path": ".well-known"}, {"Location-Path": "core"}] (or, worse, "\x6B.well-known\x04core").

Grüße, Carsten