Re: [Uri-review] URI review request for 'leaptofrogans' scheme

Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com> Fri, 14 September 2018 17:23 UTC

Return-Path: <ted.ietf@gmail.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 EA275130F50 for <uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Sep 2018 10:23:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 GfNfF_M5aDis for <uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Sep 2018 10:23:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi0-x232.google.com (mail-oi0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 84C58130F16 for <uri-review@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Sep 2018 10:23:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oi0-x232.google.com with SMTP id k12-v6so13506281oiw.8 for <uri-review@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Sep 2018 10:23:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=YKq64jomAE7D3dCojQ1FSudOhxi/HlW3jR/WgrG27Vw=; b=tuT61/dHI6QwmSuGCgFtJjaoLQbVua7x8/vB99Rmb3wSqOnpHWC+91uBJDpihl6MQL /LjUHt+kb76TElykN/zZ5kzWY34Zrm+ldFpe2SUBimdsXwpikgyDx7cTTdl7G74NhDlS pxrK920qX9vk+3KMdAJ2JOT7DeqKAODc2qOwX+jBnGflUgDfQliFV5UjH8uJbULKY3mm Bd8UJOOBSaDyF6K6P57ZDABiZyqT8wE1W5WWZUnmCewy4+caIcwhw5R0WOJi3wNV0JQI 17TsuXrqfUi/ngu+yTTP9Xd6pS34NnvjFJtNX/wXStLFB6n981ftqdhnMlly4RPw9IZu ehrQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=YKq64jomAE7D3dCojQ1FSudOhxi/HlW3jR/WgrG27Vw=; b=YwEpSBI7waN/bGtnsiD4zCElkEaesftTdHRaPV1IlEzIeNp8zDZNGtRbSvvrd7lmkV K727WkG6IcMTz0ZE+nz3J8vbz109W7dJns9skgw4V+jwzbB9xbWom9vjB8LR7Bd0aO7R osjkQ1pDHrNtrfBX1hmIow8cUem2s6FHwdREY7xs1Hr+5tRYI1ImxRpZBnrd+aWcXxIU u68JE5gHXzNUhlngVh/kdtM+2LY9sXE/TIE/zUFbfQqVOLLhP48B6gjevFw0WtI6VNFk 03OMmkFuiL8Dap6OXW1RorIu4gojXsQhqM/L7KFTuS5Fo8YUbOZNFzd37zTi70/6rAnY c1eg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APzg51C3Do8inkisF28YznFKjzf5K8el+qDpRtDK70HXAIiazio1BeOi mCAVWG9Grcj8ZVjSBE3YKxr7cILa3GTYbwio/9s=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ANB0VdajQ1/kd8Mb8aUW3bBR/+O7h31tuP7tqsKGQ8w9Netcl1Pkk/rCw+Kd2aVu9dIYCKsm228w6r0974NwBy2HyTs=
X-Received: by 2002:aca:171a:: with SMTP id j26-v6mr9242594oii.277.1536945807546; Fri, 14 Sep 2018 10:23:27 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 2002:a4a:8927:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Fri, 14 Sep 2018 10:22:57 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <5eabdf3a-7fdc-4e53-b69d-daba1aa98073@mozilla.com>
References: <5eabdf3a-7fdc-4e53-b69d-daba1aa98073@mozilla.com>
From: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2018 10:22:57 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+9kkMBC2iOna-QRMr5O0dvAfXmtZYrCAf2h3PO0-YYo-yy3uA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@mozilla.com>
Cc: uri-review@ietf.org, alexis.tamas@op3ft.org, khaled.koubaa@op3ft.org, Jean-Emmanuel RODRIGUEZ <jean-emmanuel.rodriguez@op3ft.org>, Benjamin PHISTER <benjamin.phister@op3ft.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000e5dffa0575d814ac"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/uri-review/CIFOIUka6HIYwZEq8G0sOKFc1M8>
Subject: Re: [Uri-review] URI review request for 'leaptofrogans' scheme
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: Fri, 14 Sep 2018 17:23:42 -0000

Howdy,

draft-op3ft-leaptofrogans-uri-scheme references the IFAP spec but the
pointer given is to an access page; it would likely be clearer to point to
a specific version, e.g.
https://www.frogans.org/en/resources/ifap/ifap10-adopted.spec.txt .

I personally found the discussion of the relationship of leaptofrogans to
IRIs somewhat confusing and under-specified.  From what I have worked out,
the Frograns networks and Frogans sites are both forbidden by IFAP from
using the percent symbol within their names.  This means that any
leaptofrograns URIs will not need to deal with percent-encoding any
existing percent signs.  The document goes on to say:

   This is because Frogans Player interprets both URIs
   and IRIs based on the 'leaptofrogans' URI scheme.  If the U+0025
   PERCENT SIGN character is found in the string, then the string is
   interpreted as a URI, otherwise it is interpreted as an IRI.

While it may be useful to know what the Frogans Player currently does, the
specification really has to say what further implementation should do, and
this isn't really clear.  Similarly, the Security considerations section
lists mitigations that are specific to a particular piece of software,
rather than more generally.  Up-leveling this so it is useful to other
implementations would be good.

I also must confess to a general concern about the use of IRIs.  At the
time the IRI documents were written, they were conceived of as a
presentation form useful for interacting with users, but the underlying
assumption was that protocol elements would always be URIs.  See this from
Section 3 fo RFC 3987:

   However, when the resource
   identifier is used for resource retrieval, it is in many cases
   necessary to determine the associated URI, because currently most
   retrieval mechanisms are only defined for URIs.  In this case, IRIs
   can serve as presentation elements for URI protocol elements.

This document appears to be defining a scheme for use with a resource
retrieval system, but it is doing so with the IRIs as the primary
identifier.  It's outside the scope of this discussion to review the
implications of that for IFAP, but I think it is fair to note that IRIs
have not been a resounding success, and that even if the IRI usage were
very completely specified here the chances that libraries outside the
Frograns ecosystem would support it seems small.  I infer that in part
because of the special casing in IFAP (e.g. the use of an IDNA-based
repertoire but with the restoration of the asterisk to PVALID within
Frogans strings) , but mostly on the general state of IRI processing.

I think this could be substantially simpler, by defining these as URLs
where any Frograns Network or Frogans Site which uses characters outside
the US-ASCII range encodes them with percent encoding when constructing a
URL.
This might also simplify the equivalence matching algorithm, but that
depends a bit on your needs there.

regards,

Ted Hardie

On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 8:52 AM, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@mozilla.com>;
wrote:

> This message constitutes a request for review of the 'leaptofrogans' URI
> scheme, specified here:
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-op3ft-leaptofrogans-uri-scheme/
>
> Although the completed registration template follows, reading the I-D is
> advised. I am the document shepherd and have cc'd the authors.
>
> ###
>
> 6.  IANA Considerations
>
>    [RFC Editor: Please replace 'xxxx' with assigned RFC number before
>    publication]
>
>    In accordance with the guidelines and registration procedures for new
>    URI schemes [RFC7595], this section provides the information needed
>    to register the 'leaptofrogans' URI scheme.
>
>    Scheme name: 'leaptofrogans'
>
>    Status: permanent
>
>    URI Scheme Syntax: See Section 4 of RFC xxxx.
>
>    URI Scheme semantics: See Section 2 of RFC xxxx.
>
>    Encoding Considerations: See Section 4 of RFC xxxx.
>
>    Applications/protocols that use this scheme name: Frogans Player as
>    well as any end-user application (such as a Web browser or an E-mail
>    client) wishing to launch Frogans Player on a given Frogans site.
>
>    Interoperability Considerations: There are no known interoperability
>    concerns related to use of the 'leaptofrogans' URI scheme.
>
>    Security Considerations: See Section 7 of RFC xxxx.
>
>    Contact: Alexis Tamas mailto:alexis.tamas@op3ft.org
>
>    Change controller: OP3FT mailto:contact-standards@op3ft.org
>
>    References: RFC xxxx.
>
> ###
>
> _______________________________________________
> Uri-review mailing list
> Uri-review@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review
>