IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Uri-review] URI Scheme "ves:"

Jim Zubov <ietf-list@commercebyte.com> Tue, 21 December 2021 13:40 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-list@commercebyte.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 32C2A3A102A for <uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Dec 2021 05:40:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=commercebyte.com
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 uXREcdBip0Z2 for <uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Dec 2021 05:40:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ocean1.commercebyte.com (ocean1.commercebyte.com [104.131.120.15]) (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 4E6FE3A102C for <uri-review@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Dec 2021 05:40:35 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=commercebyte.com; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:To:From:Date; bh=MV+7UYwAfB/Kg0Ev9iHw98IvEnIOp/4h82pUGu8mUrg=; b=nLTbROyKZdmdnYdJ6ShZLxsEQRaZSpd+mtL6qGiJAqj5xuP0zXYMjmTdftaDNMMM4NhKMRErpsBcGGEUgOqtB/5hvs1eImf6OWsYWqgT5qoITwJchl+1CHtSERrWrbEpn3vdchrdHukV0jbDWFkcPzDWUS57W+gglFzcfv2paHA=;
Received: from 50-79-151-250-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([50.79.151.250]:5234 helo=[127.0.0.1]) by ocean1.commercebyte.com with esmtpsa (UNKNOWN:DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from <ietf-list@commercebyte.com>) id 1mzfNa-0005kt-6a; Tue, 21 Dec 2021 08:40:34 -0500
Received: from [206.81.2.95]:7120 (helo=[127.0.0.1]) by [172.16.0.104]:45448 (localhost) with VESmail ESMTP Proxy 1.58 (encrypt=FALSE mode=FALLBACK); Tue, 21 Dec 2021 08:40:33 -0500
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2021 08:40:29 -0500
From: Jim Zubov <ietf-list@commercebyte.com>
To: Wade Benford <wade@soupsdeli.com>, "uri-review@ietf.org" <uri-review@ietf.org>
User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android
In-Reply-To: <1174886867.22172.1640093277007@email.ionos.com>
References: <1174886867.22172.1640093277007@email.ionos.com>
Message-ID: <F42C6667-6AF1-4382-941A-DE16D8C15428@commercebyte.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - ocean1.commercebyte.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - commercebyte.com
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: ocean1.commercebyte.com: authenticated_id: jz@nixob.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/uri-review/db3fVjZIaKfBaeukoqfFzdyNe3g>
Subject: Re: [Uri-review] URI Scheme "ves:"
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, 21 Dec 2021 13:40:41 -0000


On December 21, 2021 8:27:57 AM EST, Wade Benford <wade@soupsdeli.com> wrote:
> In your pdf, I see where you say: 
>
> Unescaped “?” and “#” should be treated as URI part separators, for 
>compatibility with any possible future revisions. 
>
>
> AFAIK RFC 3986 is not going to have revisions, or where you speaking of 
>future revisions of your "ves" specification? 

Yes I'm taking about future revisions of VES uri specs.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email