Re: [Uri-review] Review Provisional registration for app URI scheme

Stian Soiland-Reyes <stain@apache.org> Wed, 17 January 2018 16:47 UTC

Return-Path: <stain@apache.org>
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 2918712D7E2 for <uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Jan 2018 08:47:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.93
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.93 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, ENV_AND_HDR_SPF_MATCH=-0.5, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 woSSbGR3Esxu for <uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Jan 2018 08:47:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 7D8C0127077 for <uri-review@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Jan 2018 08:47:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 75227 invoked by uid 99); 17 Jan 2018 16:47:09 -0000
Received: from mail-relay.apache.org (HELO mail-relay.apache.org) (140.211.11.15) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 17 Jan 2018 16:47:09 +0000
Received: from mail-vk0-f43.google.com (mail-vk0-f43.google.com [209.85.213.43]) by mail-relay.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mail-relay.apache.org) with ESMTPSA id 5990A1A0279 for <uri-review@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Jan 2018 16:47:07 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-vk0-f43.google.com with SMTP id q62so8996971vkb.11 for <uri-review@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Jan 2018 08:47:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxytfV4UU6ripBQUVE+ejDNLEts/XD6uaqTAS7IIdxHnxmGHUp298B erDk+1ggUwedd70OLZYI/UpZz4JMlhm5AtnsDidHmw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBouVByK3ZfO5iKxNDi6NeoFPK0S1vHrdqwY6gdXmvEKoulL72PbecLIJWhyGjcc9jQVw0p3aUDMY/bn79rXyuP8=
X-Received: by 10.31.108.132 with SMTP id j4mr2288596vki.159.1516207624836; Wed, 17 Jan 2018 08:47:04 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.159.37.172 with HTTP; Wed, 17 Jan 2018 08:46:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Originating-IP: [84.92.48.26]
In-Reply-To: <FCE36985-BDC4-419E-97AB-CC061B43A9C7@tzi.org>
References: <20180117144647.GC5245@biggie> <4d910f73-9ca4-c661-0ff1-f508b8ccbed2@gmx.de> <FCE36985-BDC4-419E-97AB-CC061B43A9C7@tzi.org>
From: Stian Soiland-Reyes <stain@apache.org>
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2018 16:46:44 +0000
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <CAMBJEmU2s8B8Rvz-GW=3n4Dt0c_qCQHzm1M52GpAXn+qQmHzvw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAMBJEmU2s8B8Rvz-GW=3n4Dt0c_qCQHzm1M52GpAXn+qQmHzvw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, uri-review@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/uri-review/4rB7NZ-PHQp-EsE7s1bOofNjbVo>
Subject: Re: [Uri-review] Review Provisional registration for app URI scheme
X-BeenThere: uri-review@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Wed, 17 Jan 2018 16:47:12 -0000

On 17 January 2018 at 16:38, Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>; wrote:

> … which raises the question what “app” stands for.
> The draft talks about archives and packages, which explains “a” and the first “p”, but I don’t understand the second “p” (pointer?).
> Yes, I read about the desire to stay compatible with https://www.w3.org/TR/2015/NOTE-app-uri-20150723/, but it probably would help to have a more accurate retronym if that is necessary.

+1 to make a good bacronym :) "Archive and Packaging Protocol"?

But.. I deliberately left out a protocol unless
https://rawgit.com/stain/I-D/master/app/app.html#rfc.section.3.1
counts?


> (I’m interested in this as it is sometimes useful to have URIs for references from a CBOR data item to other data items within a bigger, compound data item.  We could define this based on this scheme or in a different way, possibly based on the way the compound data item is formed.)

Interested in your requirements here, specially if you need more
flexibility in the authority or path field. I guess this will fit into
the comments on the Internet-Draft -- but feel free to do Pull
Requests before that ! :)