Re: [Uri-review] In WG last call review of URI Schemes rtsp, rtsps and rtspu

Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com> Tue, 08 May 2012 17:14 UTC

Return-Path: <masinter@adobe.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 3358121F84D0 for <uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 May 2012 10:14:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.353
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.353 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.246, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Z3mEk5Ia9Fmi for <uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 May 2012 10:14:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod6og112.obsmtp.com (exprod6og112.obsmtp.com [64.18.1.29]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DE8121F862B for <uri-review@ietf.org>; Tue, 8 May 2012 10:14:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from outbound-smtp-1.corp.adobe.com ([192.150.11.134]) by exprod6ob112.postini.com ([64.18.5.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKT6lUZSVfdsfJwhZN9onpu2k6jRKaPVGe@postini.com; Tue, 08 May 2012 10:14:39 PDT
Received: from inner-relay-4.eur.adobe.com (inner-relay-4.adobe.com [193.104.215.14]) by outbound-smtp-1.corp.adobe.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id q48HC1J0016873; Tue, 8 May 2012 10:12:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nahub01.corp.adobe.com (nahub01.corp.adobe.com [10.8.189.97]) by inner-relay-4.eur.adobe.com (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id q48HE6Yu007286; Tue, 8 May 2012 10:14:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nambxv01a.corp.adobe.com ([10.8.189.95]) by nahub01.corp.adobe.com ([10.8.189.97]) with mapi; Tue, 8 May 2012 10:14:08 -0700
From: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
To: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>, "julian.reschke@gmx.de" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 8 May 2012 10:14:06 -0700
Thread-Topic: [Uri-review] In WG last call review of URI Schemes rtsp, rtsps and rtspu
Thread-Index: Ac0tPZ+Cl9rJqo4RTKOO9GuYTE8lHAAABGkg
Message-ID: <C68CB012D9182D408CED7B884F441D4D194AE353E9@nambxv01a.corp.adobe.com>
References: <4F99665D.8060404@ericsson.com> <CA+9kkMAvr6eXHzB_HMVgGqBHpUpeuh-mrWRP6-Ap0w3SZLvV-Q@mail.gmail.com> <4FA13522.6020103@ericsson.com> <C68CB012D9182D408CED7B884F441D4D194AD547DE@nambxv01a.corp.adobe.com> <4FA8EB2E.8070609@ericsson.com> <4FA8F231.90407@gmx.de> <CA+9kkMCOatpOO2P5c0PxSt=CKfUCG2pOaKYNkP-e-80ianps1Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+9kkMCOatpOO2P5c0PxSt=CKfUCG2pOaKYNkP-e-80ianps1Q@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "uri-review@ietf.org" <uri-review@ietf.org>, "public-iri@w3.org" <public-iri@w3.org>
Subject: Re: [Uri-review] In WG last call review of URI Schemes rtsp, rtsps and rtspu
X-BeenThere: uri-review@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 08 May 2012 17:14:40 -0000

Note that the URNbis working group has been discussing fragment identifiers for URNs.
If you say a URN is merely a URI using the "urn:" scheme, then perhaps whether
URNs allow fragment identifiers should be out of scope for the URNbis working group.

Larry


-----Original Message-----
From: Ted Hardie [mailto:ted.ietf@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2012 10:11 AM
To: julian.reschke@gmx.de
Cc: Magnus Westerlund; Larry Masinter; mmusic-chairs@tools.ietf.org; uri-review@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Uri-review] In WG last call review of URI Schemes rtsp, rtsps and rtspu

On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 3:15 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:

> Can't I even say that fragments is not allowed for a scheme?
>
>
> No.

I'm not sure I agree with this.  If a registration is intended to
create an identifier that has no associated resource (and thus no
media type), it could say that fragments are not permitted.  This is a
restatement of something that can be inferred from 3986, but I think
it's a useful thing to reinforce.

regards,

Ted