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

Christer Holmberg <> Wed, 07 December 2016 06:23 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C26C129682 for <>; Tue, 6 Dec 2016 22:23:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.221
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.221 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6Adc35Zz0TlY for <>; Tue, 6 Dec 2016 22:23:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 05D4712967E for <>; Tue, 6 Dec 2016 22:23:35 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb25-b304d98000001d07-f6-5847aae4b22b
Received: from (Unknown_Domain []) by (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id E6.98.07431.4EAA7485; Wed, 7 Dec 2016 07:23:33 +0100 (CET)
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0319.002; Wed, 7 Dec 2016 07:23:13 +0100
From: Christer Holmberg <>
To: Matthew Kerwin <>, Alexey Melnikov <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-appsawg-file-scheme-14
Thread-Index: AQHSSiwdHMurdzVghEWp7tWnuH9XBKDvum+AgAAtkID///Z+gIABeCoAgAph6QCAAFppgA==
Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2016 06:23:12 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-ID: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFtrEIsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM2K7q+7TVe4RBks+81jsf3+IyWLBQRWL q68+s1jsmneU1YHFY+epA2weS5b8ZPLYs/4Lm8eXy5/ZAliiuGxSUnMyy1KL9O0SuDIOXv7H WNCsWzF/2gnWBsbtKl2MHBwSAiYSLw8JdDFycQgJrGOUOL+2iRHCWcQoMe/1PyaQIjYBC4nu f9ogcRGBRkaJ7p9nWLsYOTmYBXIlZh67C2YLCzhINN/6zghiiwg4Srzd38wCYYdJHFq6mA3E ZhFQkZje0QxWwytgLbH/6B92iGW/mCRe/vvGCrKMUyBS4nVXCEgNo4CYxPdTa5ggdolL3Hoy H8yWEBCQWLLnPDOELSrx8vE/sFZRAT2JNffDIMJKEj82XGKBaNWTuDF1ChuEbS0x5eY1dghb W2LZwtfMEOcISpyc+YRlAqP4LCTbZiFpn4WkfRaS9llI2hcwsq5iFC1OLU7KTTcy1kstykwu Ls7P08tLLdnECIzJg1t+q+5gvPzG8RCjAAejEg9vwSW3CCHWxLLiytxDjBIczEoivMuXuUcI 8aYkVlalFuXHF5XmpBYfYpTmYFES5zVbeT9cSCA9sSQ1OzW1ILUIJsvEwSnVwJhqPP/KUjHv L09c3RUzFPh3TTsx10pga19TwV6VtT5vbNUvxN9iYtrapukk19TtefqIUMqZo2ndnavDGl66 z8rRmyKwwHqxwUKzyd+3HfwseSLU/+GMqUHXtn8wsjQp2eFXta7s/HKdFSc2nrDi/72taMW5 kKUbqnq/JjTt+Fuqy16Qu93Es1aJpTgj0VCLuag4EQBrYmM1xQIAAA==
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-appsawg-file-scheme-14
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2016 06:23:39 -0000


>Thanks for the review, it dovetails nicely with other feedback I've
>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 :)



>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.
>Matthew Kerwin  |  Queensland University of Technology  |
>  |  CRICOS No 00213J
>From: Christer Holmberg <>
>Sent: 30 November 2016 20:26:54
>To: Alexey Melnikov;
>Subject: Re: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-appsawg-file-scheme-14
>>>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 :)
>From: Alexey Melnikov
>Date: Tuesday 29 November 2016 at 14:00
>To: Christer Holmberg
>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
>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