Re: [Uri-review] URI scheme registration request

John Wason <wason@wasontech.com> Tue, 01 December 2015 03:07 UTC

Return-Path: <wason@wasontech.com>
X-Original-To: uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F02361B386E for <uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Nov 2015 19:07:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, GB_I_LETTER=-2, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 t4ARezM-NXEK for <uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Nov 2015 19:07:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qg0-x22c.google.com (mail-qg0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c04::22c]) (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 653891B3869 for <uri-review@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Nov 2015 19:07:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: by qgcc31 with SMTP id c31so135102351qgc.3 for <uri-review@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Nov 2015 19:07:28 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=wasontech-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type; bh=TAmIzBKqfEhPAZPG+K1r8sjLkmxJtK8697drVr9uRpA=; b=A/ZrCkTWTnoIyUHTxo2OEbA2rpbNcAVu1KMuJOwnjmxNEazduyERHBD/+tBr5dB80N IiFy1TRdxySu/ee30MrAWH9lBqIr29DVpqGzt1NrwDFMDrE1kYq3+HCltHNeYGJX/whs GOiaCd/zxKIbItMVCXiCrP6Fl4hd67Xl+l2e8j1nBOlcFkCRlBoozP4vC+nSMR3p5Khl oLLBANX8oooJ7mbQtMGHLbjm8YSYPpuEfDrgO5FSRMlOyvAfQPrpP6d+qmrFuFpBfBGA m1qkrmQRrxi+XY2VUxyKWclhKn9+W3fnvX+xn7+OMvqVT0/Cy4qECj2Eol9ih7tJ782H mVkg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type; bh=TAmIzBKqfEhPAZPG+K1r8sjLkmxJtK8697drVr9uRpA=; b=YvPTF7JR4GPA7loebRIabsVm2YlvQjm2t1ltQKBhzJ8E2fsvoLVruAIA1A2cp2tLkN tJAcIeMLoZfnXHvOCiIDVE0Sd8FPreiWGIDCCaUxyt/2zzzgR5sKSf7g4wljHH3oRM5A RTqZSg7OWEZIxrQmpn0RmUdvHsCx9Vin9HBWaCDr2Tcx3QQSci2GSltzL2yGg4gTT9fi dRs1o5tUfl2qzrIMoVdeJ6W6I18+XGFjvglUYtsA3se5wvqHeEmr/i8EWmKUsmAkjrF0 52G5bF74ob3Dfxj97WLgr0a7KmS4+q+oy+ztGGqdN1aOm2Pn+atp+tJrZfeAWDHol8p6 O23A==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnsoaGbhdFpE1ZDvbzbeeZO63F5gJcghlGQCiZS9T9gEcTn2G1dO2QYoZOc6L/SXPmyDVwG
X-Received: by 10.140.93.52 with SMTP id c49mr77740195qge.101.1448939248453; Mon, 30 Nov 2015 19:07:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.94] (ool-44c6b4b5.dyn.optonline.net. [68.198.180.181]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id 64sm8871270qhh.19.2015.11.30.19.07.27 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 30 Nov 2015 19:07:27 -0800 (PST)
To: Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com>
References: <564531FC.7000606@wasontech.com> <2D58682309E75147BB3B286C815CAC7E2ACD0A184B@AUSX7MCPS308.AMER.DELL.COM> <5646C765.4050907@wasontech.com> <E3443077-C4D8-496E-BCD0-661F387831E3@gbiv.com> <BY2PR03MB412048F8332055735B3CFFDA3100@BY2PR03MB412.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <5647B3D1.6000608@wasontech.com> <BY2PR03MB4126303C398BA1771C297F3A3100@BY2PR03MB412.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
From: John Wason <wason@wasontech.com>
Message-ID: <565D0EEC.7090601@wasontech.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2015 22:07:24 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <BY2PR03MB4126303C398BA1771C297F3A3100@BY2PR03MB412.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------040106000703020800050200"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/uri-review/KalTS-a_yDmEP2AceJPGRl2J8p0>
Cc: "uri-review@ietf.org" <uri-review@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Uri-review] URI scheme registration request
X-BeenThere: uri-review@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Tue, 01 Dec 2015 03:07:32 -0000

Are there any more questions about this request?  I have not received 
any replies.

On 11/14/2015 6:37 PM, Dave Thaler wrote:
>
> Short answer: unfortunately no
>
> This was the subject of issue #16:
>
> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/appsawg/trac/ticket/16
>
> It was discussed at IETF 89 and then again at IETF 90. In both cases, 
> and as confirmed on the list,
>
> the consensus of the WG was to not allow a notion of wildcards.   
> Instead you have to individually
>
> register each such scheme.  I see “svn+ssh” is not currently 
> registered, but it sounds like it ought to be.
>
> Dave
>
> *From:*John Wason [mailto:wason@wasontech.com]
> *Sent:* Saturday, November 14, 2015 2:21 PM
> *To:* Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com>; Roy T. Fielding 
> <fielding@gbiv.com>
> *Cc:* uri-review@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Uri-review] URI scheme registration request
>
> Is it possible to register a "wildcard" or have an understanding that 
> the scheme can be appended with the transport type?  Subversion uses 
> "svn+ssh" to specify an ssh tunnel.  This format seems to be used 
> occasionally in practice.  Because the different transports can point 
> to completely different resources on the same host I am not sure 
> having the transport in the query portion is the correct solution.
>
> On 11/14/2015 3:07 PM, Dave Thaler wrote:
>
>     Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>
>     >A URI scheme should define what it names and how that naming maps
>     to the URI syntax.
>
>     >There is nothing wrong with using separate schemes for different
>     transports if those transports
>
>     >are essential parts of the name (e.g., if something named Fred at
>     TCP:80 is different from something
>
>     >named Fred at UDP:89898).  (I prefer using dots, like rr.tcp and
>     rr.udp and rr.tcp.tls.)
>
>     Careful… RFC 7595 states:
>
>        Furthermore, to prevent collisions with private-use scheme
>     names, new
>
>        scheme names registered MUST NOT contain a "." unless actually
>
>        constructed from a reversed domain name.
>
>     So rr.tcp should only be done if you register rr as a TLD, and
>     since rr is 2 letters, it’s reserved for a country code.
>
>     Dave
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> John Wason, Ph.D.
> Wason Technology, LLC
> PO Box 669
> Tuxedo, NY 10987
> (518) 279-6234
> wason@wasontech.com <mailto:wason@wasontech.com>


-- 
John Wason, Ph.D.
Wason Technology, LLC
PO Box 669
Tuxedo, NY 10987
(518) 279-6234
wason@wasontech.com