RE: [Uri-review] Request for review
"Gregg Brown" <greggb@microsoft.com> Sat, 20 May 2006 17:13 UTC
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FhV1V-0007CS-BA; Sat, 20 May 2006 13:13:53 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FhUbH-0004a9-CY for uri-review@ietf.org; Sat, 20 May 2006 12:46:47 -0400
Received: from mail3.microsoft.com ([131.107.1.8]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FhUbG-0003RF-1t for uri-review@ietf.org; Sat, 20 May 2006 12:46:47 -0400
Received: from mailout5.microsoft.com ([157.54.69.148]) by mail3.microsoft.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Sat, 20 May 2006 09:46:45 -0700
Received: from RED-MSG-43.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([157.54.61.167]) by mailout5.microsoft.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Sat, 20 May 2006 09:46:44 -0700
x-mimeole: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: [Uri-review] Request for review
Date: Sat, 20 May 2006 09:46:15 -0700
Message-ID: <1BDEA1CB8DD11744BC0F7C096DD0D5A208CEC87A@RED-MSG-43.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
In-Reply-To: <c70bc85d0605200740u7d451d09j1e7fa47a86ee078d@mail.gmail.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [Uri-review] Request for review
thread-index: AcZ8G05r+yqYL3xvSp6/e39I7sKRogAEEckw
From: Gregg Brown <greggb@microsoft.com>
To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>, Andrey Shur <andreysh@exchange.microsoft.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 May 2006 16:46:44.0767 (UTC) FILETIME=[FA607AF0:01C67C2C]
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: cd26b070c2577ac175cd3a6d878c6248
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 20 May 2006 13:13:52 -0400
Cc: Ted Hardie <hardie@qualcomm.com>, uri-review@ietf.org, Jerry Dunietz <jerryd@windows.microsoft.com>, "John Calhoon (LCA)" <john.calhoon@microsoft.com>
X-BeenThere: uri-review@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proposed URI Schemes <uri-review.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review>, <mailto:uri-review-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:uri-review@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:uri-review-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review>, <mailto:uri-review-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: uri-review-bounces@ietf.org
Mark, I'll let Andrey answer the technical concerns, but I would like you to be able to view the specification. The license is just a review license, and is intended support letting you, and others like you look at the spec. Please have a quick look at the license text and feel free to ask any specific questions. Gregg Brown | Lead Program Manager | Digital Documents | (206) 295 0592 (cell) | (425) 707 5892 (desk) -----Original Message----- From: mbaker@gmail.com [mailto:mbaker@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Mark Baker Sent: Saturday, May 20, 2006 7:40 AM To: Andrey Shur Cc: uri-review@ietf.org; Ted Hardie; Jerry Dunietz; Gregg Brown; John Calhoon (LCA) Subject: Re: [Uri-review] Request for review Andrew, When I try to learn more about "open packaging", I'm confronted with a request to accept a license that I'm hesitant to accept. Therefore, I have not read that document. But if I assume it's just some kind of packaging format, like multipart/zip/etc.., I have a serious concern about the need for this new URI scheme. If I have a package identified by this URI; http://www.mysite.com/my.package Then why can't I identify the "a/b/foo.xml" part contained therein, by this URI? http://www.mysite.com/my.package/a/b/foo.xml It seems to me to meet the requirements that are explicitly mentioned in your registration template. e.g. being able to use the URI of the package as a base URI for parts. There's other concerns too, about the encoding a URI inside the authority component of another URI, but the concern described above trumps it so I'll refrain from getting into that for now. Cheers, BTW, thanks for following the procedure described in RFC 4395. I think this is our first registration request under the new guidelines, so it's nice to see it in good shape. Mark. On 5/11/06, Andrey Shur <andreysh@exchange.microsoft.com> wrote: > > > > > This mail is sending to request the submission of the "pack" Uri scheme > registration template (attached) for review. > > > > Regards > > - Andrey Shur > > > _______________________________________________ > Uri-review mailing list > Uri-review@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review > > > > _______________________________________________ Uri-review mailing list Uri-review@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review
- [Uri-review] Request for review Andrey Shur
- Re: [Uri-review] Request for review Mark Baker
- Re: [Uri-review] Request for review Daniel R. Tobias
- RE: [Uri-review] Request for review Gregg Brown
- Re: [Uri-review] Request for review Mark Baker
- RE: [Uri-review] Request for review Andrey Shur
- RE: [Uri-review] Request for review Andrey Shur
- Re: [Uri-review] Request for review Mark Baker
- RE: [Uri-review] Request for review Andrey Shur
- RE: [Uri-review] Request for review Martin Duerst
- RE: [Uri-review] Request for review Andrey Shur
- Re: [Uri-review] Request for review Mark Baker
- RE: [Uri-review] Request for review Martin Duerst
- RE: [Uri-review] Request for review Jerry Dunietz
- Re: [Uri-review] Request for review Mark Baker
- RE: [Uri-review] Request for review Jerry Dunietz
- Re: [Uri-review] Request for review Mark Baker
- RE: [Uri-review] Request for review Jerry Dunietz
- Re: [Uri-review] Request for review Mark Baker
- RE: [Uri-review] Request for review Andrey Shur
- Re: [Uri-review] Request for review Mark Baker
- RE: [Uri-review] Request for review Andrey Shur
- RE: [Uri-review] Request for review Andrey Shur
- Re: [Uri-review] Request for review Martin Duerst
- Re: [Uri-review] Request for review Mark Baker
- RE: [Uri-review] Request for review Andrey Shur
- Re: [Uri-review] Request for review Mark Baker
- RE: [Uri-review] Request for review Andrey Shur
- Re: [Uri-review] Request for review Mark Baker
- RE: [Uri-review] Request for review Andrey Shur
- Re: [Uri-review] Request for review Mark Baker
- RE: [Uri-review] Request for review Andrey Shur
- Re: [Uri-review] Request for review Roy T. Fielding
- RE: [Uri-review] Request for review Andrey Shur
- Re: [Uri-review] Request for review Roy T. Fielding
- Re: [Uri-review] Request for review Roy T. Fielding
- RE: [Uri-review] Request for review Martin Duerst
- RE: [Uri-review] Request for review Andrey Shur
- RE: [Uri-review] Request for review Andrey Shur
- [Uri-review] Request for review Frank Ellermann
- Re: [Uri-review] Request for review Mykyta Yevstifeyev
- Re: [Uri-review] Request for review Bjoern Hoehrmann
- Re: [Uri-review] Request for review Frank Ellermann
- Re: [Uri-review] Request for review Bjoern Hoehrmann
- Re: [Uri-review] Request for review Frank Ellermann