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

[Graham Klyne <[e-mail]>]

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 <[e-mail]> 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
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review
>