IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Uri-review] URI Scheme "ves:"

Jim Zubov <ietf-list@commercebyte.com> Tue, 21 December 2021 15:05 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-list@commercebyte.com>
X-Original-To: uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C71C83A1039 for <uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Dec 2021 07:05:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=commercebyte.com
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 2fQojRIQe777 for <uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Dec 2021 07:04:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ocean1.commercebyte.com (ocean1.commercebyte.com [104.131.120.15]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B93933A0E57 for <uri-review@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Dec 2021 07:04:58 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=commercebyte.com; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:To:From:Date; bh=WZzHbOFOGzCQSYE6suaT+7w+vPyjLMfn/NWuoPiV6Zg=; b=l3sJFxJZHBKbiFMtQYqXQF7DvnmYhqPckfF7jjOcbczyuM9ZXWfcjcy1Oq4cB0X6KfJMO8ErvpRailjmGHo7B6kh/A6A5IUMzoRv8/07gP3sus3gCyKDT3pzztkz1wPWzLXNqCRPVivnQP4fwM3eBUK03RG4T9AIHdWdRwBHlms=;
Received: from [172.58.129.178] (port=57210 helo=[IPv6:::1]) by ocean1.commercebyte.com with esmtpsa (UNKNOWN:DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from <ietf-list@commercebyte.com>) id 1mzghD-0006Hy-Tt; Tue, 21 Dec 2021 10:04:56 -0500
Received: from [2604:a880:400:d0::1ba9:8001]:7120 (helo=[IPv6:::1]) by [2607:fb90:9087:7ef5:19b:5bf5:1d44:22c2]:40572 (localhost) with VESmail ESMTP Proxy 1.58 (encrypt=FALSE mode=FALLBACK); Tue, 21 Dec 2021 10:04:55 -0500
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2021 10:04:44 -0500
From: Jim Zubov <ietf-list@commercebyte.com>
To: Wade Benford <wade@soupsdeli.com>, Jim Zubov <ietf-list@commercebyte.com>, "uri-review@ietf.org" <uri-review@ietf.org>
User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android
In-Reply-To: <1523568480.20322.1640097911866@email.ionos.com>
References: <1174886867.22172.1640093277007@email.ionos.com> <F42C6667-6AF1-4382-941A-DE16D8C15428@commercebyte.com> <1693619625.16369.1640095542307@email.ionos.com> <213EECD8-8AD3-4723-9335-9B256146ABDC@commercebyte.com> <1523568480.20322.1640097911866@email.ionos.com>
Message-ID: <69292463-950E-4379-81B0-CD4887B8E7C0@commercebyte.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----ZI7ROPA4H5UN88RBAE0QFXD2PYPXMV"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - ocean1.commercebyte.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - commercebyte.com
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: ocean1.commercebyte.com: authenticated_id: jz@nixob.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/uri-review/34NrdYoNnVFOWNR1cE8f6kV9Tx0>
Subject: Re: [Uri-review] URI Scheme "ves:"
X-BeenThere: uri-review@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proposed URI Schemes <uri-review.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/uri-review>, <mailto:uri-review-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/uri-review/>
List-Post: <mailto:uri-review@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:uri-review-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review>, <mailto:uri-review-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2021 15:05:04 -0000

I envision future possible use consistent with the common url semantics - '?' is a query separator followed by name=value&..., and '#' is followed by a strictly local fragment string. I just wanted to explicitly state that the separator characters, when unescaped, should never be treated as a part of improperly encoded path.

On December 21, 2021 9:45:11 AM EST, Wade Benford <wade@soupsdeli.com> wrote:
>I was asking about the future versions you mentioned in the pdf.   It sounds like you have given it some forethought and I was hoping you could elaborate on your future use of the separators incase your next version comes out immediately after you receive scheme assignment from IANA.
>
>
>> On 12/21/2021 9:12 AM Jim Zubov <ietf-list@commercebyte.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Between the scheme and the path... Well I think it's equivalent to a null path. Which is illegal in the VES scheme, at least in the present version of it.
>> 
>> 
>> On December 21, 2021 9:05:42 AM EST, Wade Benford <wade@soupsdeli.com> wrote:
>> > 
>> > > On 12/21/2021 8:40 AM Jim Zubov <ietf-list@commercebyte.com> wrote:
>> > > 
>> > > 
>> > > On December 21, 2021 8:27:57 AM EST, Wade Benford <wade@soupsdeli.com> wrote:
>> > > 
>> > > > In your pdf, I see where you say:
>> > > > Unescaped “?” and “#” should be treated as URI part separators, for
>> > > compatibility with any possible future revisions.
>> > > 
>> > > > 
>> > > > 
>> > > > AFAIK RFC 3986 is not going to have revisions, or where you speaking of
>> > > future revisions of your "ves" specification?
>> > > 
>> > > Yes I'm taking about future revisions of VES uri specs.
>> > 
>> > 
>> > Will that include using those separators between the scheme and path?
>> > (Which btw, I don't nessecarily have a problem with but there was another guy on here that was met with substantial resistance.)

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email