IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Uri-review] Request for review

Timothy Mcsweeney <tim@dropnumber.com> Sat, 30 May 2020 15:00 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 E2D753A085C for <uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 30 May 2020 08:00:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.795
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.795 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 BemBi9_KJYNn for <uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 30 May 2020 08:00:45 -0700 (PDT)
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 2ACEE3A09A2 for <uri-review@ietf.org>; Sat, 30 May 2020 08:00:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from oxusgaltgw03.schlund.de ([10.72.72.49]) by mrelay.perfora.net (mreueus004 [74.208.5.2]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1Mw8kq-1ipPoz2pfQ-00s9iL; Sat, 30 May 2020 17:00:17 +0200
Date: Sat, 30 May 2020 11:00:16 -0400
From: Timothy Mcsweeney <tim@dropnumber.com>
Reply-To: Timothy Mcsweeney <tim@dropnumber.com>
To: Michael Wojcik <Michael.Wojcik@microfocus.com>, uri-review@ietf.org
Message-ID: <1759640974.393018.1590850816391@email.ionos.com>
In-Reply-To: <DM6PR18MB270066320792DAC3091C6DA4F98C0@DM6PR18MB2700.namprd18.prod.outlook.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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
Importance: Normal
X-Mailer: Open-Xchange Mailer v7.10.1-Rev31
X-Originating-Client: open-xchange-appsuite
X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:liv1tisIwDPnpf6T69X1fkUJILCTdAyr44vVxZFttMurOyF7wCN 8ixq0tTDaC3Gy8LXdOTvisuZE4oAJ7ZZOc9VqCnWGkWl+8hz9rN5McyHDyoBKeMCGBjrwaF zBXTtO7LtJUbc+H6X9gCiGpndc5lP7g5HYa7D+V10Hm88cbEGO5wmUxZeNu1Eyvdu/0EIH7 ZtUddWAkRKastY+lDTe1Q==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:70DAmasOALQ=:D/VsqhO4pbi4C1p9jXjV5P ot6FWYxGfDOGel1k5djRJCbgKreP380yG13EIfoP/Nm+YZ9ZMIp950Sh5gnUTK9SM2XXhoFj8 MFlTI/40EMz6lGpPa718V4dtBKyCL//CokQPgpmhjdIF3/4BeVbS54gEEAht1euvcL2G98Akc h/1HQSf7KIHgPNuaNeSNGq48zkowAnAq6yr6jOazsCAug3ONcac8I0Y/pr4xv/FSFjzWSFQLl 7SP9RpTghls4qT1Pr0ngbSqLrMU8IDceJ2yhUb80+bsZ+h4y4UZg2m6dDZML1l9/jkJz6Aiaq GJz51wyhxuM32enFxW/lj69wy03ZyoBYtkiSczdNNj4FapvRbdzcK9NnPkqyHbsy3E0i1lW63 bdpJ6LK1GOfdMPz3fsuXjeyyJSdRJ6Qs1PrWPEg30Hhb9NdRgZRwf9951QxC24GF2oDibYBX/ t2KwiR2MQexWZgIuEmCnMcJneyHNHVK6SMc6rtno0bVglBB6apT2UO5MBc3pvUMcBPCU5V0+A D0lvhfQFSlXuAx1OO9hOwjInKshL2pUCQSF1bTs5KJeGHX7y5QubNT7j45AILZ9BIKu5mJEiH A7X1DFQTwX5FCQwnzpQqxuVUJlmgvsVuwytBxaTEI4rAhJB1grp+m+1Oa4HXKABjsRGi18SLC 5jdI48VraF2cRDIzqA8unjJpeYRZV9IX3SyaOhvMv/ZCtxJ2qKVM7hrXqUtq/t4BG5t7HyZTz 3Rn69BRbh8PhSzWih3NbsDdjWVtZuViKK2VfWFHku6Q2vizheZMMziQSunKdCytzaFJ4iSE7K hytz4EH1ZxYrYKq/MmO/matoZfvurzqo4zf3ZHjrjT194SeZwam+T6TwF/CMjtwr/e7Z3LK
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/uri-review/_COP3mn3nSiANT38uxIH34MGwCI>
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: Sat, 30 May 2020 15:00:47 -0000

Hi Michael, 

Before I reply to that, I want to be sure you and I are on the same page about
how my draft works.  Using the browser example, drop#mk34s is queried,
reponses given, the browser then goes to http://mk34s.dropexample.com  
and in the browser address bar it says http://mk34s.dropexample.com" rel="nofollow">http://mk34s.dropexample.com.

Is that how you understand my draft?

Tim




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