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

Alexey Melnikov <> Tue, 29 November 2016 11:00 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A32FF1293F4 for <>; Tue, 29 Nov 2016 03:00:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.719
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.719 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.b=lft9RImW; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.b=uAxozIxS
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3Fv8mTdDB7FH for <>; Tue, 29 Nov 2016 03:00:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 98EBE1293E0 for <>; Tue, 29 Nov 2016 03:00:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from compute7.internal (compute7.nyi.internal []) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 152A8206F2; Tue, 29 Nov 2016 06:00:20 -0500 (EST)
Received: from web5 ([]) by compute7.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 29 Nov 2016 06:00:20 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed;; h=cc :content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-sender :x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=mesmtp; bh=DXCGB/SH4PzMlUh4V4Hou7Rzcn o=; b=lft9RImWE1MKjIp9a1Q/BmAJroFpsoukXZmjseIbd+1IA5Bbue8s8WNDbQ Lomo43q68mGICgYgzKYmEfM0o0w2Xyw8N6z9Skr8u4C1ihDONyRuGKdpr+26dGSu aBCws8ed6LncPDzI9F22cuKBZBk9MTXzdsLtMaIV68XdJi1oc=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=smtpout; bh=DX CGB/SH4PzMlUh4V4Hou7Rzcno=; b=uAxozIxSq93Ck8n6lP5vomUenpxjeM9uCp aQ/Py9GFHPpfs/y5rQKZTvjx9iTEzV3NPvXvwgwnuKAGbTuJLHg7xWX1IrtQ/T7H jSIJZPkkl8hczSnAbkcpvxl6ew4cZdrDDRlpoKlf1XtUnlf6ZNH0xKf8oRWBGr89 V2sKb9UWY=
X-ME-Sender: <xms:xF89WM38oSiFZfEILuam0NIekGu1C6Y4Volb1AAQ04xh7c9I-dGNVw>
Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 99) id E13125A67D; Tue, 29 Nov 2016 06:00:19 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <>
From: Alexey Melnikov <>
To: Christer Holmberg <>,
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_----------=_148041721934562080"
X-Mailer: Webmail Interface - ajax-89a52833
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2016 11:00:19 +0000
References: <>
Archived-At: <>
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 11:00:22 -0000

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