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

[Jürgen Schönwälder <[e-mail]>]

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.
 
> 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: [phone]         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
Fax:   [phone]         <https://www.jacobs-university.de/>