IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Uri-review] Request for review

Timothy Mcsweeney <tim@dropnumber.com> Sat, 30 May 2020 15:27 UTC

Return-Path: <tim@dropnumber.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 C3CE13A08D3 for <uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 30 May 2020 08:27:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.795
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.795 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 KB17eaV9yvTu for <uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 30 May 2020 08:27:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mout.perfora.net (mout.perfora.net [74.208.4.194]) (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 5C06C3A08D4 for <uri-review@ietf.org>; Sat, 30 May 2020 08:27:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from oxusgaltgw03.schlund.de ([10.72.72.49]) by mrelay.perfora.net (mreueus003 [74.208.5.2]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0Lm2Pn-1j6GfR2Lsf-00ZiOz for <uri-review@ietf.org>; Sat, 30 May 2020 17:27:04 +0200
Date: Sat, 30 May 2020 11:27:04 -0400
From: Timothy Mcsweeney <tim@dropnumber.com>
Reply-To: Timothy Mcsweeney <tim@dropnumber.com>
To: uri-review@ietf.org
Message-ID: <906613693.393411.1590852424418@email.ionos.com>
In-Reply-To: <DM6PR18MB270066320792DAC3091C6DA4F98C0@DM6PR18MB2700.namprd18.prod.outlook.com>
References: <491516506.246380.1589851279474@email.ionos.com> <5EC9B257.31362.CC5E003@dan.tobias.name> <1783049000.100771.1590323508943@email.ionos.com> <5ECA8A94.23977.101292FE@dan.tobias.name> <1426881880.158099.1590335585858@email.ionos.com> <94368b41-c15b-da2c-421d-fdd9300be6e9@dret.net> <1310141163.159340.1590344745080@email.ionos.com> <BL0PR2101MB102738EF50D7C8AD647E10BBA3B20@BL0PR2101MB1027.namprd21.prod.outlook.com> <1081815563.141711.1590624311343@email.ionos.com> <BL0PR2101MB102762C4CAFACC383412D5D8A38E0@BL0PR2101MB1027.namprd21.prod.outlook.com> <BL0PR2101MB10278A5360398EFF2E73FC0BA38E0@BL0PR2101MB1027.namprd21.prod.outlook.com> <117630321.142251.1590627970509@email.ionos.com> <8ae1641a-74c8-6c2d-7092-6cf53e745fb7@ninebynine.org> <797476254.282655.1590770737009@email.ionos.com> <656ab4ec-df34-c7a4-ed36-79a03623636c@ninebynine.org> <1435838702.391137.1590841215132@email.ionos.com> <DM6PR18MB270066320792DAC3091C6DA4F98C0@DM6PR18MB2700.namprd18.prod.outlook.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
Importance: Normal
X-Mailer: Open-Xchange Mailer v7.10.1-Rev31
X-Originating-Client: open-xchange-appsuite
X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:hZAg/UU2mVgjErz2tcLC7q4MHxjJZZelRv0A6sGeXKGLu/YiXd7 uIQmX3t/dgIB7Zzrey2Z2NmzXz14X193cEzRXCOG1Mz8VHHOqbmLctVwJNo+ASp9i20eUG5 o8PKRAKqS3ptJnMg6CNClUcnDnLdlVzRos42EaD3KbA9D/UzuFpjFBTsPQkOoD8Q5PXqBrn zvFfMizMjy6fk9YuWSMJA==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:0BxIQTqTnhc=:ethuUnbRQJUjjfvXALLpDs QR6+f9kwI6d0/DDxAtz2FD5y6w3ynzlgddT8VPBnVq0iInFg9O8/frT/2+KkfqySVFRF0lm84 K6JEZUCMy4/Zv/E6keTweoBkxQBG3nWKmXnVyGwZBo8jNorfZE6YDbgnDnlzV1B4KaKv2elmO YyMRFqjnOgzpvFOFHPGEITXvzi/8ghj2Tfh0bG3BdwMEYmZgCwKO5XBFhDmMfKtCY8FRZCY88 EjVVlBqDfmzq7kunKygKxKWgtEKq5tgyHv67umI4JWdw9Oqf4w0RPKZy9YXpCMeqtYAzd8IAn 1luKzUhyZ7oDahmX/2VgCgQEa0d2b6Guy7KI8jrY1fKeGW0v0FeNg5Jtr9qC1zVmvJHxpYDdC 28zp2ma+wbesgoPeeteOU5+WCXMKPo8yCIUuG1XjoHwLPyFhU5t+XMtF52dwIFG/uMsalhuNc 98BXMGWnSo3Q7qcvZGJcNJHCJaNU8wzFDrKx9/RLwucfOO0Z/9SUeUyQT3YytGFBJe4hdn2HO oyr63BQpZs/NWYoFDGxIl8iTG5gCfKoLlhXBgJXUPfprT4hxprXERNLbk7urEx6+vQYcTcIUI Oq/xda14xzuyXZiDmnc79mGGUyspDGKHoAvMcWg5FW0KsyEs0CuVeh+txZoN8OvWv37Fy+/so alFvwlrZleQYaoD2RyJ9Lc7LyTigUPoS3TijgPQXzr/mCDbQBqSgsxzhqfoVB+uI1hHIOAGED byKhw8BJn7LxIBAcQ13EMoU1u0qu22asnXkXOCrQnA0S2xjHttx4qte6udqltcvVDW/1eghbp D5xmoa3Tfc6LQ8j1Ir0uxx7U3mfrpdNcq37VYQGoVTTxIIn7jIdFapPHuHVaGA9jpFZcyYk
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/uri-review/m0GQsVxXiNeKq4W4YAv7mULJtn4>
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: Sat, 30 May 2020 15:27:07 -0000


Hi Michael,

Before I reply to that, I want to be sure you and I are on the same page about
how my draft works. Using the browser example, drop#mk34s is queried,
reponses given, the browser then goes to <http://mk34s.dropexample.com>
 and in the browser address bar it says <http://mk34s.dropexample.com>.

Is that how you understand my draft?

Tim

On May 30, 2020 at 10:01 AM Michael Wojcik < Michael.Wojcik@microfocus.com> wrote:


From: Uri-review [mailto: uri-review-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Timothy Mcsweeney
Sent: Saturday, May 30, 2020 06:20
To: Graham Klyne; uri-review@ietf.org
And if people want to make parsers that don't work with the spec it doesn't
become the spec's problem.
That's not the issue here. The issue here is that you're misinterpreting RFC 3986.

3986 section 3 is not ambiguous. The first production is:

URI = scheme ":" hier-part [ "?" query ] [ "#" fragment ]

The colon is explicit and not optional. A minimal URI consists of a scheme, a colon, and a hier-part. There's no wiggle room there, and no amount of casuistry regarding other parts of 3986 will change that.

Someone could also point to 1.2.3, where the language clearly notes that the colon is the scheme delimiter; or 3.5, which makes it clear that the hash symbol is always the fragment delimiter. But those arguments are redundant in light of the generic-URI top-level production that begins section 3.

To be honest, I don't understand why you're being so difficult about this. What's your motive for trying to find grounds in 3986 for repurposing the fragment identifier?

--
Michael Wojcik

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email