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

[Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail]>]

Hi Christer,



On Tue, Nov 29, 2016, at 12:34 PM, Christer Holmberg wrote:

> 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.


I think this is fair. I will let the editor come up with some proposal.


Best Regards,

Alexey



> Regards,

> 

> Christer

> 

> 

> *From: *Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail]> *Date: *Tuesday 29
> November 2016 at 14:00 *To: *Christer Holmberg
> <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <gen-
> [e-mail]> *Cc: *"draft-ietf-appsawg-file-
> [e-mail]" <draft-ietf-appsawg-file-
> [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 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

> 

>