Re: [secdir] [art] SecDir review of draft-ietf-appsawg-file-scheme-14

["Allistair Brown" <[e-mail]>]

Hi everyone, please remove me from this email thread. Thank you.





-----Original Message-----
From: art [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Larry Masinter
Sent: 07 December 2016 07:46 AM
To: Larry Masinter; Matthew Kerwin; Barry Leiba; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]; IETF discussion list; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [art] SecDir review of draft-ietf-appsawg-file-scheme-14

Just to be clear: I think the level of specification in this document is appropriate and a "full" specification would be intractable.
 
But it would be useful to be just a bit more explicit about the things that you should figure out before implementing (about what other implementations do on the same platform).

Larry
--
http://larry.masinter.net

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Larry Masinter
> Sent: Tuesday, December 6, 2016 6:03 PM
> To: Matthew Kerwin <[e-mail]>; Barry Leiba 
> <[e-mail]>; draft-ietf-appsawg-file- 
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]; IETF discussion list <[e-mail]>; 
> [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: SecDir review of draft-ietf-appsawg-file-scheme-14
> 
> 
>      It’s a tiny thing, but where the abstract says “replacing the
>     definition in RFC 1738,” one may be led to think (I was) that 1738 has
>     a more robust definition than it does.  D’you mind changing that to
>     something like this: ‘This document provides a full specification of
>     the "file" Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) scheme, replacing the
>     very brief definition in Section 3.10 of RFC 1738.’
> 
> s/full/more complete/
> 
> A “full” specification of file: URIs might include a set of platform 
> and file-system specific implementation advice about how to handle 
> file naming, variations in Unicode normalization, case sensitivity, 
> and so forth.
> 

_______________________________________________
art mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/art