Re: [Uri-review] Is TCP a URI scheme?

Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org> Fri, 22 February 2019 11:19 UTC

Return-Path: <gk@ninebynine.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 E09DD12EB11 for <uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 03:19:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=unavailable 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 jEWIaMaOGNo3 for <uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 03:19:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from relay11.mail.ox.ac.uk (relay11.mail.ox.ac.uk [129.67.1.162]) (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 3BD101277CC for <uri-review@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 03:19:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp4.mail.ox.ac.uk ([129.67.1.207]) by relay11.mail.ox.ac.uk with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <gk@ninebynine.org>) id 1gx8rX-0004xp-cJ; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 11:19:28 +0000
Received: from gklyne38.plus.com ([81.174.129.24] helo=spare-94.atuin.ninebynine.org) by smtp4.mail.ox.ac.uk with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <gk@ninebynine.org>) id 1gx8rW-0008yQ-F4; Fri, 22 Feb 2019 11:19:26 +0000
Message-ID: <5C6FDABF.4030001@ninebynine.org>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2019 11:19:27 +0000
From: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: =?windows-1252?Q?=22Martin_J=2E_D=FCrst=22?= <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, Eric Johnson <eric=40tibco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
CC: "uri-review@ietf.org" <uri-review@ietf.org>
References: <CAKaEYh+X_uj39OQNLy9O+aq1pbwYftbvyjx8TG0Y84wsw_ymoA@mail.gmail.com> <CA+9kkMDYrgL17X_rFtTrA10A-UrpRLYb4iPJM2RmJ2=b12Lx2Q@mail.gmail.com> <CANu9=NcSP+rhsCR58i1RzAnA8EoaOvTWW_Tpg5eT+_xkZ7+3mg@mail.gmail.com> <38b9b695-9ac6-444c-5977-33fcb54aad6a@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
In-Reply-To: <38b9b695-9ac6-444c-5977-33fcb54aad6a@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Oxford-Username: zool0635
X-Oxmail-Spam-Status: score=0.0 tests=none
X-Oxmail-Spam-Level: /
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/uri-review/b_YznBDWNJ2vJZXClWN91pXPSxo>
Subject: Re: [Uri-review] Is TCP a URI scheme?
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: Fri, 22 Feb 2019 11:19:33 -0000

I have a couple of comments prompted by this thread..


1. I propose that it is quite possible to use a string that conforms to URI 
syntax (explicitly or otherwise) without it being a URI.  So what makes it a 
URI?  Two touchstones that I apply are: (a) "what does it identify", and (b) 
"does it make sense to use it in a context where other URI schemes might equally 
be used" (e.g., as an href in an HTML document, or as a link relation type on an 
HTTP Link: header field).


2. Registration of *provisional* URI schemes is now first-come, first-served, 
without formal review, subject to satisfying some simple administrative 
requirements (cf. [1]).

    Permanent registration is a different matter, and does involve stricter 
requirements and formal review [2], which in turn involves some judgement by the 
reviewer about whether the requirements are satisfied.  As the current reviewer, 
I will typically look for indications of working group approval, similar from 
other recognized bodies like W3C, or "IETF review" (formerly "IETF consensus") 
[3] to inform that judgement.


[1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7595#section-4

[2] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7595#section-3

[3] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8126#section-4.8

#g
--


PS: since [4], I've personally come to further downplay the URI/URL distinction. 
I regard it as more to do with context of use than something inherent to the 
actual string form used, in that *any* identifier can be a locator given the 
right infrastructure (e.g,. DOIs), and any locator can potentially be used as an 
identifier.

[4] https://www.w3.org/TR/uri-clarification/



On 22/02/2019 04:54, Martin J. Dürst wrote:
> Hello Eric, others,
>
> On 2019/02/22 09:49, Eric Johnson wrote:
>
>> Speaking somewhat on behalf of TIBCO, I'm not sure that the use of a string
>> that begins "tcp:" means that what is contained is necessarily a URL. I did
>> a small amount of very informal questioning of some of my fellow employees,
>> and didn't get the impression that the use of "tcp:" was anything other
>> than a signal for the type of thing that followed the prefix, and not
>> strictly speaking a "resource" locator.
>
> This overlaps quite a bit with what I'd have written as an answer to the
> original question if I had had some spare time when that comes up.
>
> One of the core points of URIs is that they unify syntax at a very high
> level (the level of foo:). That makes them very useful for pointing at
> various things, from various places. The original place was the href
> attribute of the <a> element in HTML. There, the main schemes were
> http:, https:, ftp:, mailto:, and so on.
>
> Other places where there was a need to point to something reused URIs,
> but once in a while, there was a need to point to something that didn't
> yet have an URI scheme. With the use of URIs expanding, such things got
> more and more diverse. That somebody somewhere wanted to point to a
> (potential) tcp connection, and would used tcp: for that, was just a
> matter of time.
>
> For quite a while, registration of URI schemes was handled rather
> strictly. It's supposed to be easier today, but it's still some work,
> some discussion, and some wait. Also, the documents describing URIs are
> not necessarily an easy read for everyone, because they use general
> terms that can easily be misunderstood.
>
> Also, please note that we are talking about URIs here, not URLs, so it's
> resource Resource Identifier, not Locator. And "resource" is really
> extremely general, even if for some schemes (e.g. mailto:), some care is
> needed when describing what exactly it stands for.
>
>   > On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 9:18 AM Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>; wrote:
>   >
>   >> I don't believe it has ever been registered, even provisionally, but you
>   >> can find example syntax in both IBM and TIBCO documentation of their
>   >> usage.  See, for example:
>   >>
>   >>
>   >>
> https://docs.tibco.com/pub/activespaces/2.1.6/doc/html/GUID-CAE482DF-C20D-46C4-AD2D-337535551423.html
>
> Looking at that page, it says "TCP Discovery URL Format". I'm not
> familiar with this "discovery" part, but it may have been better to use
> something like "tcp-disc:" or so as a prefix.
>
> Regards,   Martin.
> _______________________________________________
> Uri-review mailing list
> Uri-review@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review
>