Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-appsawg-file-scheme-14

[Christer Holmberg <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

>Thanks for the review, it dovetails nicely with other feedback I've
>received.
>
>Elsewhere this text has been suggested for the abstract:
>
>> This document provides a full specification of
>> the "file" Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) scheme, replacing the
>> very brief definition in Section 3.10 of RFC 1738.
>
>Does that go some way to resolve the ambiguity there? It doesn't use the
>words "update" or "obsolete" but it seems to me that it says what it
>needs to.

I am fine with ³replace² :)

Regards,

Christer




>
>The acknowledgements section has also been flagged, and I will work on
>updating that.
>
>The remaining chunky bit of feedback I'm yet to address is about what
>non-backwards compatible changes are being made. I'll have to redo a bit
>of research to address this, to make sure I don't inadvertently lie, but
>it's definitely been taken on board. I'm hoping to say something along
>the lines of: "it aims to be backwards compatible except where
>incremental changes are inherited from specifications published since RFC
>1738." That's pretty much what it says in Appendix A.
>
>Cheers
>--
>Matthew Kerwin  |  Queensland University of Technology  |
>[e-mail]  |  CRICOS No 00213J
>________________________________
>From: Christer Holmberg <[e-mail]>
>Sent: 30 November 2016 20:26:54
>To: Alexey Melnikov; [e-mail]
>Cc: [e-mail]
>Subject: Re: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-appsawg-file-scheme-14
>
>Hi,
>
>>>Thanks for your reply! It clarifies my issues.
>>>
>>>However, for other outsiders like me, I think it would be really good
>>>to add some text about that in the draft. Explicitly say that the draft
>>>updates RFC 1738 by obsoleting the files URL scheme, defines a new URI
>>>scheme based on the procedures in RFC 3986. Because, as an outsider,
>>>it¹s really difficult
>>>for me to figure that out, and e.g., determine what/if I need to read
>>>RFC 1738 etc. Also, the text should not only cover the technical
>>>changes (syntax
>>>etc), but also if there are changes regarding the usage etc.
>>
>>I think this is fair. I will let the editor come up with some proposal.
>
>Thanks! I also suggest to remove the ³derived² text from the
>Acknowledgements. Of course, the authors of RFC 1738 can still be
>acknowledged :)
>
>Regards,
>
>Christer
>
>
>
>From: Alexey Melnikov
><[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
>Date: Tuesday 29 November 2016 at 14:00
>To: Christer Holmberg
><[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>,
>"[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>"
><[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
>Cc: 
>"[e-mail]<mailto:draft-ietf-appsa
>[e-mail]>"
><[e-mail]<mailto:draft-ietf-appsa
>[e-mail]>>
>Subject: Re: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-appsawg-file-scheme-14
>
>
>Hi Christer,
>Thank you for your comments.
>
>On Tue, Nov 29, 2016, at 10:34 AM, Christer Holmberg wrote:
>
>I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
>Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
><http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>
>
>Document:                       draft-ietf-appsawg-file-scheme-14.txt
>Reviewer:                         Christer Holmberg
>Review Date:                   29 November 2016
>IETF LC End Date:           6 December 2016
>IETF Telechat Date:        N/A
>
>Summary: I don¹t have any major comments regarding the technical content
>of the draft. However, as seen in my comments below, I fail to see
>exactly how RFC 1738 is updated.
>
>Major Issues: None
>
>Minor Issues:
>
>The Abstract text says:
>
>   "This document specifies the "file" Uniform Resource Identifier (URI)
>scheme, replacing the definition in RFC 1738.²
>
>Q1: I suggest that the text should say that the document ³updates the
>file URI scheme defined in RFC 1738².
>
>This is not really useful, because RFC 1738 was already obsoleted (but
>file URI definition was never update).
>
>
>Q2: Related to Q1, in RFC 1738 the ³file² scheme is defined as a URL, but
>in the draft it is defined as a URI. What is the reason for that?
>
>The term URL (Uniform Resource Locator) was replaced by a more generic
>URI (Uniform Resource Identifier). Historically, some URIs were
>"locators" and some were "names", but more recently a lot of URIs exhibit
>both qualities. Thus the term URL should not be used.
>
>
>Q3: Related to Q1, it is unclear exactly what parts of the RFC 1738
>scheme is updated. For example, is the syntax updated, is the usage scope
>updated etc? The second
>       paragraph says something, but it is unclear whether it¹s related
>to the actual update, or whether it just provides some information
>regarding the usage
>       of the scheme.
>Everything is updated. The original RFC doesn't need to be read.
>
>The Acknowledgements section says that the draft is ³derived² from RFC
>1739. What does ³derived² mean? I think there should be clear and
>explicit text about exactly what is updated.
>
>Q4: Related to Q3, the text says that things are backward compatible in
>³most situations². I think a little more text is needed, and e.g.,
>examples of non-backward compatibility.
>
>Q5: I see that RFC 1738 is only a Informative Reference. Someone can
>correct me if I¹m wrong, but doesn¹t it have to be Normative since the
>draft is normatively (I assume) updating the RFC?
>No (as per above).
>
>Editorial Issues: None
>
>
>