Re: [Uri-review] In WG last call review of URI Schemes rtsp, rtsps and rtspu

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Tue, 08 May 2012 17:47 UTC

Return-Path: <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
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 0DF5821F853B for <uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 May 2012 10:47:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.105
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.105 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.506, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ncmp5m5cPqFX for <uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 May 2012 10:47:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net (mailout-de.gmx.net [213.165.64.23]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id DF23121F852B for <uri-review@ietf.org>; Tue, 8 May 2012 10:47:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 08 May 2012 17:47:33 -0000
Received: from mail.greenbytes.de (EHLO [192.168.1.140]) [217.91.35.233] by mail.gmx.net (mp029) with SMTP; 08 May 2012 19:47:33 +0200
X-Authenticated: #1915285
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX19aUyUzWEVa38mJNPdNPJbJ/K839YBLxRqJeXxx4N 8LNB9IWasp7eyL
Message-ID: <4FA95C23.3030802@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 08 May 2012 19:47:15 +0200
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
References: <4F99665D.8060404@ericsson.com> <CA+9kkMAvr6eXHzB_HMVgGqBHpUpeuh-mrWRP6-Ap0w3SZLvV-Q@mail.gmail.com> <4FA13522.6020103@ericsson.com> <C68CB012D9182D408CED7B884F441D4D194AD547DE@nambxv01a.corp.adobe.com> <4FA8EB2E.8070609@ericsson.com> <4FA8F231.90407@gmx.de> <CA+9kkMCOatpOO2P5c0PxSt=CKfUCG2pOaKYNkP-e-80ianps1Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+9kkMCOatpOO2P5c0PxSt=CKfUCG2pOaKYNkP-e-80ianps1Q@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
Cc: "mmusic-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <mmusic-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, "uri-review@ietf.org" <uri-review@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Uri-review] In WG last call review of URI Schemes rtsp, rtsps and rtspu
X-BeenThere: uri-review@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 08 May 2012 17:47:36 -0000

On 2012-05-08 19:11, Ted Hardie wrote:
> On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 3:15 AM, Julian Reschke<julian.reschke@gmx.de>  wrote:
>
>> Can't I even say that fragments is not allowed for a scheme?
>>
>>
>> No.
>
> I'm not sure I agree with this.  If a registration is intended to
> create an identifier that has no associated resource (and thus no

A URI has an associated resource *by definition*.

The interesting question is whether there's a way to retrieve a sequence 
of octets describing it...

> media type), it could say that fragments are not permitted.  This is a
> restatement of something that can be inferred from 3986, but I think
> it's a useful thing to reinforce.
>
> regards,
>
> Ted
>