Re: [Uri-review] Request for review
"Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk> Tue, 19 May 2020 09:40 UTC
Return-Path: <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
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 839193A131F for <uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 May 2020 02:40:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.003
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.003 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 sFV13n6Uo9io for <uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 May 2020 02:40:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from loire.is.ed.ac.uk (loire.is.ed.ac.uk [129.215.16.10]) (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 AD95C3A09D1 for <uri-review@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 May 2020 02:40:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from crunchie.inf.ed.ac.uk (crunchie.inf.ed.ac.uk [129.215.202.41]) by loire.is.ed.ac.uk (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id 04J9eThN003256 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for <uri-review@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 May 2020 10:40:29 +0100
Received: from ecclerig.inf.ed.ac.uk (ecclerig.inf.ed.ac.uk [129.215.24.151]) by crunchie.inf.ed.ac.uk (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id 04J9eSMp023345 for <uri-review@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 May 2020 10:40:28 +0100
Received: from ecclerig.inf.ed.ac.uk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ecclerig.inf.ed.ac.uk (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id 04J9eSCx029407 for <uri-review@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 May 2020 10:40:29 +0100
Received: (from ht@localhost) by ecclerig.inf.ed.ac.uk (8.14.7/8.14.7/Submit) id 04J9ePgj029405; Tue, 19 May 2020 10:40:25 +0100
X-Authentication-Warning: ecclerig.inf.ed.ac.uk: ht set sender to ht@inf.ed.ac.uk using -f
To: uri-review@ietf.org
References: <491516506.246380.1589851279474@email.ionos.com>
From: "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 19 May 2020 10:40:25 +0100
In-Reply-To: <491516506.246380.1589851279474@email.ionos.com> (Timothy Mcsweeney's message of "Mon\, 18 May 2020 21\:21\:19 -0400 \(EDT\)")
Message-ID: <f5by2poi7p2.fsf@ecclerig.inf.ed.ac.uk>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.1012 (Gnus v5.10.12) XEmacs/21.5-b34 (linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Edinburgh-Scanned: at loire.is.ed.ac.uk with MIMEDefang 2.84, Sophie, Sophos Anti-Virus, Clam AntiVirus
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.84 on 129.215.16.10
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/uri-review/adzBX8fkDI4hcoUtS3j2bJyI25w>
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: Tue, 19 May 2020 09:40:36 -0000
Timothy Mcsweeney writes: > This is a request for a review of the 'drop' URI scheme. The > draft can be found here > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mcsweeney-drop-scheme/ Without commenting on any other aspect of the proposed scheme, and mostly just to save people time, I found the following aspect of the proposal somewhat misleading: "Similar to the previously registered 'tel' [RFC3966] and 'leaptofrogans' [RFC8589] URIs, the 'drop' URI scheme is syntactically correct but does not need to use all 5 of the parse-able components available to it. The 'drop' scheme uses the number sign '#' as a general delimiter as seen in Appendix A. Collected ABNF [RFC3986]. The scheme syntax is as follows: " drop-uri = 'drop#' character string drop # fg34htx \__/ \_/ \_____/ | | | <scheme> | <scheme-specific-part> <gen-delim> " I read this as implying that 1) 'tel' and 'leaptofrogans' URIs did not begin "tel:" and "leaptofrogans:"; 2) The 3986 ABNF for URIs recognises "drop#fg34htx" as a URI. Neither of these is in fact that case. The two referenced schemes require ':' after the 'scheme' component, and the 'URI' production does _not_ recognise the above example. (The 'URI-reference' production does, but not using the 'scheme' production to cover the "drop" part.) ht -- Henry S. Thompson, School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh 10 Crichton Street, Edinburgh EH8 9AB, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440 Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/ [mail from me _always_ has a .sig like this -- mail without it is forged spam] The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
- [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