Re: [netmod] WGLC on draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6991-bis-11

Martin Björklund <mbj+ietf@4668.se> Tue, 08 March 2022 11:12 UTC

Return-Path: <mbj+ietf@4668.se>
X-Original-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 408EF3A0C70 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Mar 2022 03:12:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.109
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.109 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=4668.se header.b=pal8DY8E; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=CCtGCyg8
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FbKCs1TdUBB4 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Mar 2022 03:12:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from wout5-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout5-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.21]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E60F73A0C62 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Tue, 8 Mar 2022 03:12:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.46]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31CCF3200D25; Tue, 8 Mar 2022 06:12:39 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 08 Mar 2022 06:12:39 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=4668.se; h=cc:cc :content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:date:from:from :in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm1; bh=h2WbBwOFW76H92 qBsECDdioJnSJYjzBeC2tJ8mP95oo=; b=pal8DY8EoXxq6xNtq4Raska/D4gkUt QNm2Tulz+CkX1UFcvKyG3b/ZOERg6a/qylUPIw/uYksko3q7pZKcvdRMejzb/Ffl nUUprUQECmR3iwKb6D9YPjQgIPO759c9gU/W57JKBiwyoKlMu5C4WZwneDaG/+Sr A92pLvFt9zF1bU9IN9fRrxrNyV6ZZ/GW8TDITmakTAMI4or56xFKm5iDBTkaWvQQ PJKzv2ktuPOJnVu40P2mQrXK60eJy9bhrrpPTg4JYfT/zvEE9V2EOe2QbzGote1s KIXZylrVEWYGDhMA8afQV8KNQJ1p7kXvcBvLTdy/a9BvlW9RtQABZiDw==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:date:date:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:sender:subject :subject:to:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=h2WbBwOFW76H92qBsECDdioJnSJYjzBeC2tJ8mP95 oo=; b=CCtGCyg8gb3l5TGBhJ/XhDwbyQSdsC89rvmIkQ/L4gP5WfCHjGFZT9pmE uG1Eht/l+DSilyTeyG3VqmMiWdLnr6WcKGTLgOQrvJgLA4ZgSLvfgRzT6+mUHAa6 AaOIail6zd5n2l8I5lwnPIJzNsKAw2aIes6dPw6H1IzZV7Plx+tXov0IoPfwuDJz M00MZVTQFRcxDgk0nBEVwJVF9Aem/fzKoPkaNeivYrAeS+9rV0w/HHNUzCLV4PIQ JHIseqCfaGGebwKSmndge8aYpMsbOp44PjzWeStD7Ywa0fBfX4sXKbCADX5+UEsG sET1+nPdR51x/ewHdDPrSOQViLySQ==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:JjonYgD4NC2vydggwENcwVoEs2JpGRFrBsj5xzcurlEmiUY2RCG53w> <xme:JjonYii0U76afsPy00MfYtbLbsOzn2BQES6p57vRa_CjYLQQ0VL7oYuIrUgUPB-iy y258pykRd0LtBW5bQQ>
X-ME-Received: <xmr:JjonYjn9v_nB2Yuf87a90elNrztZ5taQPOm1YXeOp2FJ130b_Nr8NXOKM4xaLEz-b4n2IQti4Wd2ZVplM3Bn1Os_s78gjq_YJA>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvvddrudduiedgvdehucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucenucfjughrpeffkffvuffhjghfofggtgfgsehtqh ertdertddunecuhfhrohhmpeforghrthhinhcuuehjnphrkhhluhhnugcuoehmsghjodhi vghtfhesgeeiieekrdhsvgeqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhepkeelvefhvedtuddvhfduvd dvfeduvdeufedtgfehleegffejieetleffiefgteejnecuffhomhgrihhnpehjrggtohgs shdquhhnihhvvghrshhithihrdguvgenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrh grmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehmsghjodhivghtfhesgeeiieekrdhsvg
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:JjonYmxzr_dIMvtOV66oLc_hHtBfU6_UpxfYH-eviAF2mAE0vmP0sg> <xmx:JjonYlTxOmOUO7CxQwC9XHbnFxJo0LxtXCo8BwQaBlslGry5KOWtKw> <xmx:JjonYhbVQAdGjsfWNHk0cjYh4ZQ9AuNxU-FkKrKSloSkRNkDKDc8dQ> <xmx:JjonYkIAQcT44TuQLdJU0jB7IFyO-iK_hKWT75_Lkw1FnsXXqD6Hpg>
Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Tue, 8 Mar 2022 06:12:37 -0500 (EST)
Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2022 12:12:36 +0100
Message-Id: <20220308.121236.2003596445605127644.id@4668.se>
To: j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de
Cc: kent+ietf@watsen.net, netmod@ietf.org
From: Martin Björklund <mbj+ietf@4668.se>
In-Reply-To: <20220308110018.57eghbqywn3shsh4@anna>
References: <20220308090156.4pmggby2jvew25ll@anna> <20220308.112057.1061584807956330336.id@4668.se> <20220308110018.57eghbqywn3shsh4@anna>
X-Mailer: Mew version 6.8 on Emacs 26.3
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/ANyYB-88p1lilvilgjxxojz_auk>
Subject: Re: [netmod] WGLC on draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6991-bis-11
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETMOD WG list <netmod.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netmod/>
List-Post: <mailto:netmod@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2022 11:12:52 -0000

Jürgen Schönwälder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 08, 2022 at 11:20:57AM +0100, Martin Björklund wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > You didn't answer my first question about what we actually mean - do
> > we mean the "URI"
> 
>         "The uri type represents a Uniform Resource Identifier
>          (URI) as defined by STD 66. [...]"
> 
> STD 66 resolves to RFC 3986. Maybe I do not understand your question.

RFC 3986 defines the syntax for "URI" and "URI-reference", see
specifically section 4 and 4.1 of RFC 3986.  To avoid confusion, I
suggest:

     "The uri type represents a Uniform Resource Identifier
      (URI) as defined by the rule 'URI' in RFC 3986.

or "the ABNF rule 'URI'..."

(side note, is it better to refer to STD 66 rather than the RFC?)



/martin







>  
> > I agree with you re the problem with pattern in this case.
> > 
> > The simplest pattern would be:
> > 
> >       pattern "[a-z][a-z0-9+.-]*:.*"; // matches the mandatory scheme
> > 
> > but I think you will say that either we have a complete correct
> > pattern, or no pattern at all ;-)
> 
> I personally do not believe that a pattern needs to catch every
> nuance. The only requirement is that a pattern must not reject any
> valid values. For me, the description ultimately defines the type and
> a pattern merely helps to catch some of the syntactic details in an
> automated fashion.
> 
> My experience is that people have different ideas about how many
> details a pattern should capture and hence pattern have a tendency to
> grow increasingly complex over time.
> 
> I am happy to add the proposed pattern since covering the scheme part
> is apparently better than having nothing (but I am sure this will be
> the beginning of a journey and not its end).
> 
> /js
> 
> -- 
> Jürgen Schönwälder              Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
> Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
> Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <https://www.jacobs-university.de/>