Re: [T2TRG] draft-hartke-t2trg-ciri-00 review

[Dave Thaler <[e-mail]>]

FYI, the IRI WG intended to update RFC 3987 and shut down because it could not reach
consensus on IRIs.  In particular, RFC 3987 does not match what major implementations
(i.e. browsers) actually do, and so there's a major incompatibility between current practice
and what RFC 3987 does.  There does exist at least one RFC 3987 implementation out there
in Windows WinRT APIs though, but I don't know if there's others.   In practice, the
recommendation from the internationalization community in the IETF tends to be to not
use IRIs.   That is, protocols should only ever put URIs (not IRIs) on the wire, and conversion
from internationalized strings to/from URIs is done at the UI layer.

With that in mind, the case for using IRIs (as opposed to URIs) in Constrained Restful
Environments seems to not have much real-world applicability since it goes against
the internationalization guidance.

It's fine for a research project, which T2TRG is allowed to do, but may not be very useful
in practice, from what I've seen.

Dave

P.S.: An example of one incompatibility between RFC 3987 and what is widely implemented
in browsers, is how percent encoding is interpreted.  In RFC 3987 it's percent-encoded UTF-8,
whereas in implementations it's percent-encoded in whatever the charset is of the document
(or whatever) you got the IRI out of, which may or may not be UTF-8.   Again this is just one
of many examples.

-----Original Message-----
From: T2TRG <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Ari Keränen
Sent: Monday, January 21, 2019 10:25 AM
To: [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: [T2TRG] draft-hartke-t2trg-ciri-00 review

Hi,

I reviewed the CIRI -00 draft. Overall it looked very good to me but here's a few comments/questions.


2.1.  Options

    host.ip
      Specifies the host of the IRI authority as an IPv4 address
      (4 bytes) or an IPv6 address (16 bytes).

Do we need endianess considerations here? Or does CBOR take care of that?


2.2.  Option Sequences

     A sequence of options is considered _well-formed_ if:

Do we need the _emphasis_ here? Maybe in quotes since it's a defined 
term? Unless we want to follow the CDDL convention -- which perhaps 
makes sense. But then it's probably good to have a note along the lines 
of "New terms are introduced in _cursive_." in the terminology section.


     o  a "host.ip" option is followed by a "port" option;

Why is the port option mandatory? No default ports allowed?


3.  CBOR

       ciri = [?(scheme:    1, text),
               ?(host.name: 2, text //
                 host.ip:   3, bytes .size 4 / bytes .size 16),
               ?(port:      4, uint .size 2),
               ?(path.type: 5, path-type),
               *(path:      6, text),
               *(query:     7, text),
               ?(fragment:  8, text)]>

Isn't "text" too permissive type for most (all?) of the components?


Cheers,
Ari
_______________________________________________
T2TRG mailing list
[e-mail]
https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irtf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Ft2trg&amp;data=02%7C01%7Cdthaler%40microsoft.com%7C8840ed3d4dce47e1bc6208d67fcdd224%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C1%7C636836919304296169&amp;sdata=7HFctjFUzx0n8M03K7bSeWeFFYJ5TRpxINcWq%2Byadks%3D&amp;reserved=0