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

[Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail]>]

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 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