Re: [Uri-review] Request for review
Timothy Mcsweeney <tim@dropnumber.com> Wed, 11 November 2020 16:12 UTC
Return-Path: <tim@dropnumber.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 743403A02BD for <uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 08:12:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.895
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.895 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] 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 J91Gi08x5IC1 for <uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 08:12:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mout.perfora.net (mout.perfora.net [74.208.4.197]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B9A923A0141 for <uri-review@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 08:12:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from oxuslxaltgw03.schlund.de ([10.72.76.59]) by mrelay.perfora.net (mreueus003 [74.208.5.2]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MIL1t-1kaOYY3gxr-004FiO; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 17:12:01 +0100
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2020 11:12:01 -0500
From: Timothy Mcsweeney <tim@dropnumber.com>
To: Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com>, uri-review@ietf.org
Message-ID: <1410771389.10680.1605111121525@email.ionos.com>
In-Reply-To: <117630321.142251.1590627970509@email.ionos.com>
References: <491516506.246380.1589851279474@email.ionos.com> <5EC9B257.31362.CC5E003@dan.tobias.name> <1783049000.100771.1590323508943@email.ionos.com> <5ECA8A94.23977.101292FE@dan.tobias.name> <1426881880.158099.1590335585858@email.ionos.com> <94368b41-c15b-da2c-421d-fdd9300be6e9@dret.net> <1310141163.159340.1590344745080@email.ionos.com> <BL0PR2101MB102738EF50D7C8AD647E10BBA3B20@BL0PR2101MB1027.namprd21.prod.outlook.com> <1081815563.141711.1590624311343@email.ionos.com> <BL0PR2101MB102762C4CAFACC383412D5D8A38E0@BL0PR2101MB1027.namprd21.prod.outlook.com> <BL0PR2101MB10278A5360398EFF2E73FC0BA38E0@BL0PR2101MB1027.namprd21.prod.outlook.com> <117630321.142251.1590627970509@email.ionos.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Priority: 3
Importance: Normal
X-Mailer: Open-Xchange Mailer v7.10.3-Rev26
X-Originating-Client: open-xchange-appsuite
X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:NPrEDnOtYNdxmenAwIm6SA45sM3G7Z4x0IjWcIi9opAqPDz5PcT Pou6eG7Ycnd33m4EzB88aTFWDACGV+W7+/TJ2p6NlhaIQb1Qm5PzBuO2LXzIMYtvZVWH4lE 8R9bnRsJfjVNoNiRDBDmsGzTwBdalXLL6BSAf+DXI80ylgZoQhzH1AkuXwBkeK3rLgloVlJ XVMVbts8SC+d4obFzSNpw==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:ZDdQ5Yu1i9E=:rYViCL0KNRsk+xg80WSol/ 62O68TO7KEkB17GmYDyMNjzYRqwtAMaikurrjNRYS99sH7sQSN+Z9GBbDX1KeWjzcJVjIjmj/ PJQjByfEteJafc0o9OeobA2Sx7CzkEn7yzPF1GOG925S/bV36O3JBWtbPKJLU7DoqSXJM/iAf pTpXK72IX1w7ChqOBaBSA+TFeHETYuNygXMT51nH019p4pIayOmy56yWMlZbDURs7lhOCxzoV 6QylmLGnBk4LleDmiN8lUcJCSfAifiZ6v5gSHQf5E58l0f64Fl9KbxZkWm49jhhq2KWx0ugZ5 wOA2YUBI5vb54q+uYQ7PbZiaP/ZjK9WgXVNXtsOPWuGsGRTFOxcK7w02PbAHf+7/RucQgoc/+ lG4wnnfJvOmhgYLFwTYfOJFyxlxvU5k5GMW/HKKjY8DPVH+evQBg+UkIWxNbACus/Xk2kXRd5 2z42fcv6YQ==
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/uri-review/R8J6-Mc8s0lAR8TuMnPJkKRShSc>
Subject: Re: [Uri-review] Request for review
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: Wed, 11 Nov 2020 16:12:07 -0000
text version: Hi Dave, By "safe" I meant like "..... safe to be used by scheme-specific and producer-specific algorithms for delimiting data subcomponents within a URI" Like it says in section 2.2 of RFC3986. Tim > On 05/27/2020 9:06 PM Timothy Mcsweeney <tim@dropnumber.com> wrote: > > > Hi Dave, > > By "safe" I meant like "..... > safe to be > used by scheme-specific and producer-specific algorithms for > delimiting data subcomponents within a URI" > > Like it says in section 2.2 of RFC3986. > > Tim > > > On May 27, 2020 at 8:48 PM Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com> wrote: > > > > > > s/URL/URI/ in both cases in my responseJ > > > > From:Uri-review <uri-review-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf OfDave Thaler > > Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2020 5:47 PM > > To: Timothy Mcsweeney <tim@dropnumber.com>; uri-review@ietf.org > > Subject: Re: [Uri-review] Request for review > > > > I don’t understand your question. The URL syntax is fixed by that RFC. > > I don’t know what you mean by “safe” or “valid”. > > > > If by “valid” you mean “allowed by RFC 3986”, the answer is that they may only appear in a URL literally > > if they have the exact meaning in the RFC, otherwise they must be pct-encoded. > > > > > > From:Uri-review <uri-review-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf OfTimothy Mcsweeney > > Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2020 5:05 PM > > To: uri-review@ietf.org > > Subject: Re: [Uri-review] Request for review > > > > Hi Dave, > > > > If the other six gen-delims from the reserved set were safe and valid, would you oppose their use in URIs? > > > > Tim > > > > > > > > > On May 24, 2020 at 6:08 PM Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com> wrote: > > > Hi Tim, > > > > > > Correct the colon is not part of the hier-part, the hier-part is what comes after the colon. RFC 3986 says: > > > > > > URI = scheme ":" hier-part [ "?" query ] [ "#" fragment ] > > > > > > Only strings that conform to the above are URIs. > > > So “drop#sd54g54” is not a URI because it does not conform to the above syntax, as it has no “:” > > > > > > “drop:sd54g54” on the other hand would be a valid URI. > > > > > > This is what folks are saying when they say if you just change the “#” to a “:” in your draft then it becomes legal. > > > > > > Dave > > > > > > From:Uri-review <uri-review-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf OfTimothy Mcsweeney > > > Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2020 11:26 AM > > > To: Erik Wilde <erik.wilde@dret.net>; uri-review@ietf.org > > > Subject: Re: [Uri-review] Request for review > > > > > > Hi Erik, > > > > > > Thank you, I will have another look at my reference to section 3. > > > Would you agree that in "https://ietf.org (https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fietf.org%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cdthaler%40microsoft.com%7Cb115c7f8c70b410eb98308d802a0a8f4%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637262236339204192&sdata=UJ7TQnKfGZMnWkBKZCVozZQhn%2BGir1saiPQoNGV2C9M%3D&reserved=0)" the colon is not part of the hier-part? > > > > On May 24, 2020 at 12:02 PM Erik Wilde < erik.wilde@dret.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > hey tim. > > > > > > > > On 2020-05-24 17:53, Timothy Mcsweeney wrote: > > > > > Yes, I agree and understand that the same way as you. But when the "#" > > > > > leaves the client it is not leaving as a fragment, > > > > what people are telling you is that "#" and anything following it never > > > > leaves the client, by definition.. > > > > > > > > > it is leaving as a > > > > > way to separate the URI components, <scheme> and <path> or for http it > > > > > would be separating <scheme> and <authority>. It is this that makes me > > > > > believe that even if the colon is required for http resolution, it is > > > > > not necessarily required for all URI. > > > > this discussion could be more productive if you had a brief look at the > > > > specs you're depending on. the very first rule shown in > > > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986#section-3 (https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftools.ietf..org%2Fhtml%2Frfc3986%23section-3&data=02%7C01%7Cdthaler%40microsoft.com%7Cb115c7f8c70b410eb98308d802a0a8f4%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637262236339214150&sdata=upZbOkALJ8SuEk%2FpLLqhdDDUNMhdpSmjWqpMAyITzc8%3D&reserved=0) is > > > > > > > > URI = scheme ":" hier-part [ "?" query ] [ "#" fragment ] > > > > > > > > each URI is defined like this and must have a colon. > > > > > > > > cheers, > > > > > > > > dret. > > > > > > > > -- > > > > erik wilde | mailto: erik.wilde@dret.net | > > > > | http://dret.net/netdret (https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdret.net%2Fnetdret&data=02%7C01%7Cdthaler%40microsoft.com%7Cb115c7f8c70b410eb98308d802a0a8f4%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637262236339214150&sdata=hq8QVDrXxRmV3iS6DF7R%2FeXFtDKntMcYOHnLSMqx5zo%3D&reserved=0) | > > > > | http://twitter.com/dret (https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fdret&data=02%7C01%7Cdthaler%40microsoft.com%7Cb115c7f8c70b410eb98308d802a0a8f4%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637262236339224105&sdata=9V5l2cgygLF2GJbT9Eh0ptd2mv4YRbvZm6oaYSrf8fE%3D&reserved=0) | > > > > > >
- [Uri-review] Request for review Timothy Mcsweeney
- Re: [Uri-review] Request for review Henry S. Thompson
- Re: [Uri-review] Request for review Martin J. Dürst
- Re: [Uri-review] Request for review Ted Hardie
- Re: [Uri-review] Request for review Timothy Mcsweeney
- Re: [Uri-review] Request for review Martin J. Dürst
- Re: [Uri-review] Request for review Timothy Mcsweeney
- Re: [Uri-review] Request for review Daniel R. Tobias
- Re: [Uri-review] Request for review Timothy Mcsweeney
- Re: [Uri-review] Request for review Timothy Mcsweeney
- Re: [Uri-review] Request for review Daniel R. Tobias
- Re: [Uri-review] Request for review Timothy Mcsweeney
- Re: [Uri-review] Request for review Timothy Mcsweeney
- Re: [Uri-review] Request for review Daniel R. Tobias
- Re: [Uri-review] Request for review Daniel R. Tobias
- Re: [Uri-review] Request for review Timothy Mcsweeney
- Re: [Uri-review] Request for review Erik Wilde
- Re: [Uri-review] Request for review Timothy Mcsweeney
- Re: [Uri-review] Request for review Dave Thaler
- Re: [Uri-review] Request for review Timothy Mcsweeney
- Re: [Uri-review] Request for review Timothy Mcsweeney
- Re: [Uri-review] Request for review Dave Thaler
- Re: [Uri-review] Request for review Dave Thaler
- Re: [Uri-review] Request for review Timothy Mcsweeney
- Re: [Uri-review] Request for review Graham Klyne
- Re: [Uri-review] Request for review Timothy Mcsweeney
- Re: [Uri-review] Request for review Ted Hardie
- Re: [Uri-review] Request for review Timothy Mcsweeney
- Re: [Uri-review] Request for review Graham Klyne
- Re: [Uri-review] Request for review Timothy Mcsweeney
- Re: [Uri-review] Request for review Michael Wojcik
- Re: [Uri-review] Request for review Timothy Mcsweeney
- Re: [Uri-review] Request for review Timothy Mcsweeney
- Re: [Uri-review] Request for review Michael Wojcik
- Re: [Uri-review] Request for review Daniel R. Tobias
- Re: [Uri-review] Request for review Timothy Mcsweeney
- Re: [Uri-review] Request for review Timothy Mcsweeney
- Re: [Uri-review] Request for review Larry Masinter
- Re: [Uri-review] Request for review Timothy Mcsweeney
- Re: [Uri-review] Request for review Thomas Fruin
- Re: [Uri-review] Request for review Timothy Mcsweeney
- Re: [Uri-review] Request for review Timothy Mcsweeney
- Re: [Uri-review] Request for review Martin J. Dürst
- Re: [Uri-review] Request for review Timothy Mcsweeney
- Re: [Uri-review] Request for review Henry S. Thompson
- Re: [Uri-review] Request for review Daniel R. Tobias
- Re: [Uri-review] Request for review Timothy Mcsweeney
- Re: [Uri-review] Request for review Timothy Mcsweeney
- Re: [Uri-review] Request for review Timothy Mcsweeney
- Re: [Uri-review] Request for review Timothy Mcsweeney
- Re: [Uri-review] Request for review Timothy Mcsweeney
- Re: [Uri-review] Request for review Timothy Mcsweeney
- Re: [Uri-review] Request for review Timothy Mcsweeney
- Re: [Uri-review] Request for review Timothy Mcsweeney
- Re: [Uri-review] Request for review Timothy Mcsweeney
- Re: [Uri-review] Request for review Timothy Mcsweeney
- Re: [Uri-review] Request for review Timothy Mcsweeney
- Re: [Uri-review] Request for review Timothy Mcsweeney
- Re: [Uri-review] Request for review Timothy Mcsweeney
- Re: [Uri-review] Request for review Timothy Mcsweeney
- Re: [Uri-review] Request for review Timothy Mcsweeney
- Re: [Uri-review] Request for review Timothy Mcsweeney
- Re: [Uri-review] Request for review Timothy Mcsweeney
- Re: [Uri-review] Request for review Timothy Mcsweeney
- Re: [Uri-review] Request for review Timothy Mcsweeney
- Re: [Uri-review] Request for review Timothy Mcsweeney
- Re: [Uri-review] Request for review Timothy Mcsweeney
- Re: [Uri-review] Request for review Timothy Mcsweeney