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

Stian Soiland-Reyes <stain@apache.org> Thu, 25 January 2018 13:45 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 9FC6F120227 for <uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Jan 2018 05:45:43 -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 1oS-3d1pypvt for <uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Jan 2018 05:45:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id D98041241F3 for <uri-review@ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Jan 2018 05:45:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 69309 invoked by uid 99); 25 Jan 2018 13:45:39 -0000
Received: from mail-relay.apache.org (HELO mail-relay.apache.org) (140.211.11.15) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 25 Jan 2018 13:45:39 +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 2670A1A0044 for <uri-review@ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Jan 2018 13:45:39 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-vk0-f43.google.com with SMTP id n132so4843688vke.2 for <uri-review@ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Jan 2018 05:45:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxytftTDZHKye3h2GcQXyrDZJPgTVKzaQfBTyVAN6Bvf6hbY9U+Dz9 Eob/AdwYJ6THl7oQPjakTjVdZiulHBKJYZ99mdkmVg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x225hCCun2kSJZBA6INamCKCuvd6WZf2eflo5GvKQJS6L4zPuVWZLuZI3cTO1RS6/kwAaX82UiMySllHDPLECCTE=
X-Received: by 10.31.182.214 with SMTP id g205mr7148275vkf.42.1516887937197; Thu, 25 Jan 2018 05:45:37 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.176.89.114 with HTTP; Thu, 25 Jan 2018 05:45:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Originating-IP: [130.88.195.135]
In-Reply-To: <CAHhFybp_Kuta38TOANUJ1HkMdPoF5eu43gfkEruRfE+eZh3vuA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAHhFybp_Kuta38TOANUJ1HkMdPoF5eu43gfkEruRfE+eZh3vuA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Stian Soiland-Reyes <stain@apache.org>
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 13:45:16 +0000
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <CAMBJEmV93kgokdnnpQGUFJfFvppT3vgq8rSbfJviHJxkwW+GTA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAMBJEmV93kgokdnnpQGUFJfFvppT3vgq8rSbfJviHJxkwW+GTA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Frank Ellermann <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com>
Cc: IETF URI review <uri-review@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/uri-review/OsCu2UkLn52rsQMahD8KCQYYhFQ>
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: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 13:45:44 -0000

"tapp" would confuse with https://www.usenix.org/conference/tapp16 :)

As I posted I've gone for Roy's "arcp" now - and then I'll rename
"Packaging" to "Package" to avoid cardboard associations.

I'll add something about "base" -- I think a reference to
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986#section-5.1 should do.

On 25 January 2018 at 11:29, Frank Ellermann
<hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com>; wrote:
>> Do you think "app" would be acceptable again if we brought back in focus
>> the application aspect, and perhaps also covered non-file resources such
>> as UI states?
>
>
> No, "app" is just a seriously bad idea, how about "tapp" matching the title
> of your I-D "The Archive and Packaging Pointer". Not "tapps", folks would
> think that the S is about security, and you don't have that in your I-D.
>
> While at it, your I-D doesn't mention <base> as a related concept, maybe it
> should.



-- 
Stian Soiland-Reyes
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9842-9718