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

Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com> Tue, 08 May 2012 09:45 UTC

Return-Path: <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.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 B4B5421F8582 for <uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 May 2012 02:45:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.136
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.136 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.113, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, 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 L9emh44HW+PC for <uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 May 2012 02:45:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailgw2.ericsson.se (mailgw2.ericsson.se [193.180.251.37]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAA2421F8565 for <uri-review@ietf.org>; Tue, 8 May 2012 02:45:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb25-b7b09ae000007d0f-3a-4fa8eb2f2eb1
Authentication-Results: mailgw2.ericsson.se x-tls.subject="/CN=esessmw0191"; auth=fail (cipher=AES128-SHA)
Received: from esessmw0191.eemea.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.125]) (using TLS with cipher AES128-SHA (AES128-SHA/128 bits)) (Client CN "esessmw0191", Issuer "esessmw0191" (not verified)) by mailgw2.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 54.73.32015.F2BE8AF4; Tue, 8 May 2012 11:45:19 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (153.88.115.8) by esessmw0191.eemea.ericsson.se (153.88.115.85) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.3.213.0; Tue, 8 May 2012 11:45:18 +0200
Message-ID: <4FA8EB2E.8070609@ericsson.com>
Date: Tue, 8 May 2012 11:45:18 +0200
From: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
References: <4F99665D.8060404@ericsson.com> <CA+9kkMAvr6eXHzB_HMVgGqBHpUpeuh-mrWRP6-Ap0w3SZLvV-Q@mail.gmail.com> <4FA13522.6020103@ericsson.com> <C68CB012D9182D408CED7B884F441D4D194AD547DE@nambxv01a.corp.adobe.com>
In-Reply-To: <C68CB012D9182D408CED7B884F441D4D194AD547DE@nambxv01a.corp.adobe.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
Cc: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>, "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 09:45:21 -0000

On 2012-05-08 01:27, Larry Masinter wrote:
> Please note that the URI/IRI registration guidelines (4395bis) have a
> proposed "fix":
> 
> http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/wg/iri/trac/ticket/125
> 
> to add the sentence:
> 
> "However, the registration defines <scheme> and the syntax and
> semantics of <fragment>  depends only on the media type of the
> representation accessed. New scheme definitions MUST NOT define
> syntax or semantics of fragment identifiers; that is, registration
> specifications should define the syntax of <scheme-specific-part> and
> its meaning for each <scheme> defined."
> 
> That is, the recommendation is that scheme registrations do *not*
> specify the syntax or meaning of fragment identifiers.
> 
> So "Added a fragment part to the RTSP URI.  " might not be considered
> an improvement.
> 

Larry,

Can you please clarify something for me. What I have done is that I have
made it clear in the URI syntax that the fragment ABNF construct from
RFC 3986 MAY occur in an valid rtsp URI syntax. Are you saying that this
is not the right thing to do? How could I then indicate the appropriate
syntax  when the fragment identifier occur with the URI scheme being
defined? Can't I even say that fragments is not allowed for a scheme?
This appear to be the case if one would implicitly define the fragment
in an URI scheme.

Cheers

Magnus Westerlund

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                | Phone  +46 10 7148287
Färögatan 6                | Mobile +46 73 0949079
SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------