RE: [Uri-review] Request for review

Andrey Shur <andreysh@exchange.microsoft.com> Tue, 04 July 2006 05:18 UTC

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FxdJ3-0001b1-GZ; Tue, 04 Jul 2006 01:18:41 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FxdJ2-0001aw-7h for uri-review@ietf.org; Tue, 04 Jul 2006 01:18:40 -0400
Received: from mail4.exchange.microsoft.com ([131.107.1.99]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FxdIz-0008Bm-T4 for uri-review@ietf.org; Tue, 04 Jul 2006 01:18:40 -0400
Received: from df-hub-01.exchange.corp.microsoft.com ([157.54.69.171]) by mail4.exchange.microsoft.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 3 Jul 2006 22:18:35 -0700
Received: from df-bhd-02.exchange.corp.microsoft.com ([157.54.71.211]) by df-hub-01.exchange.corp.microsoft.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.2706); Mon, 3 Jul 2006 22:18:34 -0700
Received: from df-pug-msg.exchange.corp.microsoft.com (157.54.69.159) by df-bhd-02.exchange.corp.microsoft.com (157.54.71.211) for IMCEAEX-_O=MICROSOFT_OU=FIRST+20ADMINISTRATIVE+20GROUP_CN=RECIPIENTS_CN=ANDREYSH@exchange.microsoft.com with mapi; Mon, 3 Jul 2006 22:18:34 -0700
From: Andrey Shur <andreysh@exchange.microsoft.com>
To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2006 22:18:50 -0700
Subject: RE: [Uri-review] Request for review
Thread-Topic: [Uri-review] Request for review
Thread-Index: AcafAYuP91oF9PCUTN2Wm/K4depyzwAJ3VbA
Message-ID: <1D4A05136773CF4DB373F6FE4E10315001972C61E3@df-pug-msg.exchange.corp.microsoft.com>
In-Reply-To: <c70bc85d0607031733x2dece110mfa2e628db08598b6@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
AcceptLanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Jul 2006 05:18:34.0866 (UTC) FILETIME=[4C445520:01C69F29]
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 4d87d2aa806f79fed918a62e834505ca
Cc: "John Calhoon (LCA)" <John.Calhoon@microsoft.com>, TedHardie <hardie@qualcomm.com>, "uri-review@ietf.org" <uri-review@ietf.org>, Jerry Dunietz <jerryd@windows.microsoft.com>, Gregg Brown <greggb@microsoft.com>, "Jerry@scmailgw1.scop.aoyama.ac.jp" <Jerry@scmailgw1.scop.aoyama.ac.jp>
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 apologize for confusing the ownership of your mail. Sorry about that.

Regards
- Andrey Shur

-----Original Message-----
From: mbaker@gmail.com [mailto:mbaker@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Mark Baker
Sent: Monday, July 03, 2006 5:34 PM
To: Andrey Shur
Cc: Jerry Dunietz; Martin Duerst; John Calhoon (LCA); Jerry@scmailgw1.scop.aoyama.ac.jp; TedHardie; uri-review@ietf.org; Gregg Brown
Subject: Re: [Uri-review] Request for review

On 7/3/06, Andrey Shur <andreysh@exchange.microsoft.com> wrote:
> Martin,

Mark.  Now we're even 8-)

>
> On 6/29/06, Martin Duerst <> wrote:
> >>  And if we were to use fragment-identifiers for this purpose, we would
> >> raise the problematic question of what base URI should be used when
> >> dereferencing relative-URIs embedded within an individual part. If we
> >> used a fragment-identifier to address the individual part, then by
> >> ordinary conventions, the base URI for resolving relative references
> >> embedded in the individual part would be the
> >> (fragment-identifier-free) URI of the package as a whole.
> >>
> >> The combination of our three goals lead us to our specification:
> >>
> >> 1.  External absolute references to individual parts.
> >> 2.  An individual part's URI can serve as a base URI.
> >> 3.  Package can reside on any server implementing any protocol
> >> supporting a GET-like operation, without requiring new code to be
> >> deployed on the server.
>
> >My solution also meets those goals, AFAICT.
>
> Could you please explain how your solution works for the package residing on non-HTTP (e.g. FTP) server?

If I had a package at;

  ftp://example.org/foo/my.package/

then I could identify parts like so;

  ftp://example.org/foo/my.package/part1

Mark.

_______________________________________________
Uri-review mailing list
Uri-review@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review