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

Christer Holmberg <> Tue, 29 November 2016 12:39 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27FD91299DA for <>; Tue, 29 Nov 2016 04:39:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.22
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.22 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 xtoYLigA_UHF for <>; Tue, 29 Nov 2016 04:39:06 -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 8D4A4129AEB for <>; Tue, 29 Nov 2016 04:34:41 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb25-ec9d598000007ee2-a2-583d75df85db
Received: from (Unknown_Domain []) by (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 9E.ED.32482.FD57D385; Tue, 29 Nov 2016 13:34:39 +0100 (CET)
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0319.002; Tue, 29 Nov 2016 13:34:38 +0100
From: Christer Holmberg <>
To: Alexey Melnikov <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-appsawg-file-scheme-14
Thread-Index: AQHSSiwdHMurdzVghEWp7tWnuH9XBKDvum+AgAAtkIA=
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2016 12:34:37 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D46342E013C89christerholmbergericssoncom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFtrMIsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM2J7oO79UtsIg09zrS32vz/EZLHgoIrF 1VefWRyYPXaeOsDmsWTJTyaPL5c/swUwR3HZpKTmZJalFunbJXBl3Dr3ma1gZ2JFc/tLtgbG uUFdjJwcEgImEhs/P2TrYuTiEBJYxyixb+0pJghnMaPEzSNHgBwODjYBC4nuf9ogDSICoRI7 d/1kBrGZBXIlZh67ywpiCws4SDTf+s4IUeMo8XZ/MwuEbSXx+P82sDiLgKrEpEmf2EBsXgFr if1rP7BD7GpklDh88jlYA6dAgMTsW5PBhjIKiEl8P7WGCWKZuMStJ/OZIK4WkFiy5zwzhC0q 8fLxP1aQO0UF9CTW3A+DCCtK7DzbzgwSZhZIkNjwxQFiraDEyZlPWCYwis5CMnQWQtUsJFUQ JQYS78/NZ4awtSWWLXwNZetLbPxylhHCtpb4cOsEipoFjByrGEWLU4uTctONjPVSizKTi4vz 8/TyUks2MQKj8uCW36o7GC+/cTzEKMDBqMTDW+BmEyHEmlhWXJl7iFGCg1lJhPdLvm2EEG9K YmVValF+fFFpTmrxIUZpDhYlcV6zlffDhQTSE0tSs1NTC1KLYLJMHJxSDYwyt2/3Wf9au/cu k+xCZZc47tM9dVk3vWLPXJvsOX1l+fSyLPP/pu2vkt7/ergj+d2DztqOEtOFBkHv2X/P0bG5 4vBV47eS3WPLM59ZlFxupQmcbzn0V5X3gNcr+826nkbqKw81H6n8b8lsZDVrleuWdVevHj2X mGUvzXTrq9XXaZ4pkW9MXwgosRRnJBpqMRcVJwIAb830DsYCAAA=
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: Tue, 29 Nov 2016 12:39:09 -0000

Hi Alexey,

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, it’s 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.



From: Alexey Melnikov <<>>
Date: Tuesday 29 November 2016 at 14:00
To: Christer Holmberg <<>>, "<>" <<>>
Cc: "<>" <<>>
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 don’t 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.”

Q1: I suggest that the text should say that the document “updates the file URI scheme defined in RFC 1738”.

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 “file” 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 it’s 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 “derived” from RFC 1739. What does “derived” 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 “most situations”. 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 I’m wrong, but doesn’t it have to be Normative since the draft is normatively (I assume) updating the RFC?
No (as per above).

Editorial Issues: None