IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Uri-review] Request for review

Timothy Mcsweeney <tim@dropnumber.com> Wed, 11 November 2020 16:29 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 CB9203A0930 for <uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 08:29:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 k9YK2kUABVXL for <uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 08:29:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mout.perfora.net (mout.perfora.net [74.208.4.194]) (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 73B403A0855 for <uri-review@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 08:29:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from oxuslxaltgw03.schlund.de ([10.72.76.59]) by mrelay.perfora.net (mreueus004 [74.208.5.2]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1N0naj-1kP3Ra42ar-00woe0; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 17:29:28 +0100
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2020 11:29:27 -0500
From: Timothy Mcsweeney <tim@dropnumber.com>
To: Michael Wojcik <Michael.Wojcik@microfocus.com>, uri-review@ietf.org
Message-ID: <1501562967.11637.1605112167450@email.ionos.com>
In-Reply-To: <1924775136.405242.1590952556836@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> <8ae1641a-74c8-6c2d-7092-6cf53e745fb7@ninebynine.org> <797476254.282655.1590770737009@email.ionos.com> <656ab4ec-df34-c7a4-ed36-79a03623636c@ninebynine.org> <1435838702.391137.1590841215132@email.ionos.com> <DM6PR18MB270066320792DAC3091C6DA4F98C0@DM6PR18MB2700.namprd18.prod.outlook.com> <1924775136.405242.1590952556836@email.ionos.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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:izcx4bQc7z0fqvYbSh0kUq/fJLXPC0icqHdCkUtLtsYonp1ZAbi ctLhbI6FlgDwzaXHx81HBCJvO4+vuBsBIOBqwM/U2MCV7J1Kq8vbhMv/yePRTErX8uMTF1m CowdZYUT5WbPR5IOeHNQT9ln8DhTq3eJOFmmMQsj0Htjqll5l/JGu9huc9HeoR+i2P7vHkF hYRl9xpQLRJxlbSNIMuaQ==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:R2ZUla9ohjI=:2aAHN7CJt/ss9pvTU/0Hbw Q32msKj57R2SqGs/hkEY2HyURFhLGVqcHai0hwETmH33OzTdPpXtcv5CaYltL+eeUpvZKsTsn FvinJnBZxCSxoHc9iXDLsw8T5AactsI/kTibX4pli4zqlUuaC+TKaUXp/CHELg3RuVDLpfDQX gBL1q7LhutFZhKKMyIMdFFAWxbX0VUmgRcrrdgInCRzVf5w8kCOavmmRbd6w1vKQxHq1p0uyr gnTzC40+TT0gq4binrvUxtqh0pMgI1UajKj8v4FWIUoXQAyHHxUtCS78mRFjaS178uU8xxzXA XkifclM/hSwHnYLAknPcyjTdNML9/unx5srPmE3MrrBuJfecAUncWbqt19Yu5qIwWCz6TmZVm TDO1Wm6vok38c8iavtIDz7p9ZgSZlEocbd6nnaE05eaX7rEkiOSYUoF7L6HzQOzDuoLZVwche WHoRzuU98g==
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/uri-review/_Aa0fg--dBWBS0rUCCc5IN_CgCc>
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 16:29:33 -0000

text version
>The issue here is that you're misinterpreting RFC 3986.

I noticed two of the original authors are on the email list.  It would
be nice to hear what the original interpretation was.

>To be honest, I don't understand why you're being so difficult about this.
 
Having a different perspective is no being difficult. 
Imagine the first color blind person telling everyone the grass is dark gray.

> On 05/31/2020 3:15 PM Timothy Mcsweeney <tim@dropnumber.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> >The issue here is that you're misinterpreting RFC 3986.
> 
> I noticed two of the original authors are on the email list. It would
> be nice to hear what the original interpretation was.
> 
> >To be honest, I don't understand why you're being so difficult about this.
> 
> Having a different perspective is no being difficult.
> Imagine the first color blind person telling everyone the grass is dark gray.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > On May 30, 2020 at 10:01 AM Michael Wojcik < Michael.Wojcik@microfocus.com> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > > From: Uri-review [mailto: uri-review-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Timothy Mcsweeney
> > > Sent: Saturday, May 30, 2020 06:20
> > > To: Graham Klyne; uri-review@ietf.org
> > > And if people want to make parsers that don't work with the spec it doesn't
> > > become the spec's problem.
> > That's not the issue here. The issue here is that you're misinterpreting RFC 3986.
> > 
> > 3986 section 3 is not ambiguous. The first production is:
> > 
> > URI = scheme ":" hier-part [ "?" query ] [ "#" fragment ]
> > 
> > The colon is explicit and not optional. A minimal URI consists of a scheme, a colon, and a hier-part. There's no wiggle room there, and no amount of casuistry regarding other parts of 3986 will change that.
> > 
> > Someone could also point to 1.2.3, where the language clearly notes that the colon is the scheme delimiter; or 3.5, which makes it clear that the hash symbol is always the fragment delimiter. But those arguments are redundant in light of the generic-URI top-level production that begins section 3.
> > 
> > To be honest, I don't understand why you're being so difficult about this. What's your motive for trying to find grounds in 3986 for repurposing the fragment identifier?
> > 
> > --
> > Michael Wojcik

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email