IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Uri-review] Request for review of "ab:" URI scheme

Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Sat, 23 April 2011 12:24 UTC

Return-Path: <barryleiba@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: uri-review@ietfc.amsl.com
Delivered-To: uri-review@ietfc.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55333E06B2 for <uri-review@ietfc.amsl.com>; Sat, 23 Apr 2011 05:24:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.837
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.837 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.140, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([208.66.40.236]) by localhost (ietfc.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OmhYIc8cTQOk for <uri-review@ietfc.amsl.com>; Sat, 23 Apr 2011 05:24:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yi0-f44.google.com (mail-yi0-f44.google.com [209.85.218.44]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E149CE06B1 for <uri-review@ietf.org>; Sat, 23 Apr 2011 05:24:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by yic13 with SMTP id 13so402968yic.31 for <uri-review@ietf.org>; Sat, 23 Apr 2011 05:24:05 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=Et/hk5XT6YUnC6+e5aAmZM2psjGTrzJCiLgO4XqeIgI=; b=EajmcQPgR+uL86np9TyrRg+ze5q45FAdsgrxRP+w8bEY2cR6Q4JY0qcorT1c5vrxEv VmUAYf5k7mGUEBDAXuod7NvAH3sQ2uqzlvjBDGHjWhlv20iA1kWN7HiLBwwn/Dg6vOUQ RRSgGrak9BdPyov1sB7iW7We8OFDVrcC/MND8=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=M4q3eNSd/gl9wNlB5GoYVKfzGhOOWCbOMjyZZ9B4z1iEpqJo5WCI1yDWVMxy9k4c1c caUepVca+iXoFsAw43zCD5S2SccwJRtQEdIJugx9MixTmuBvnkUcY9FTNVQrDhlwSrbp 1fNmu0B+KwQ6h72Mp7VNfSNPEGLUBH4CMJgec=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.236.170.105 with SMTP id o69mr2222655yhl.196.1303561445627; Sat, 23 Apr 2011 05:24:05 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: barryleiba@gmail.com
Received: by 10.236.111.1 with HTTP; Sat, 23 Apr 2011 05:24:04 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4DB26464.2000301@gmail.com>
References: <BANLkTim8eWcWwKfyERghK2tuSP1rK0SdsA@mail.gmail.com> <cau0r6hqn16pgbr5p6adqaj9rjlns7cdlk@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de> <BANLkTinZ+988kjip_KvOfG=9HF5DBMptrA@mail.gmail.com> <4DB1AD06.2070004@gmail.com> <BANLkTiktFL1kSt1GLkLeYbfJ7A_tr5DBBg@mail.gmail.com> <4DB26464.2000301@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2011 08:24:04 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 1F4lmmOph9Un_0_KwHdbkt0IZOA
Message-ID: <BANLkTim6+QzSeZfb-9P7kF-108LVfccFUw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
To: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <evnikita2@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: uri-review@ietf.org, draft-ietf-sieve-external-lists.all@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Uri-review] Request for review of "ab:" URI scheme
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: Sat, 23 Apr 2011 12:24:06 -0000

>> The "addrbook" URI takes th form of <addrbook-uri> rule below, defined
>> using ABNF [RFC5234]:
>>
>> addrbook-uri = "addrbook:" addrbook [ "?" extensions]
>> addrbook       = segment
>> extensions     = query
>>
>> where <segment> and <query> are defined in Appendix A of RFC 3986
>> [RFC3986]

OK, that seems harmless.  I'll change that.

> 4395 has even no mention of "ABNF" or its full name.  Moreover, having 4395
> document as an *Informative* reference is something like a tradition in
> URI-scheme-specifying docs :-).

I'm happy to change it to informative if Alexey agrees.

Of course, there's also Graham's comment, which could make all this
moot anyway.  We have to think about that a bit more.

Barry

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email