IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Uri-review] Re: [art] Re: Alternative representation of URIs in YANG

"Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk> Fri, 23 January 2026 12:23 UTC

Return-Path: <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
X-Original-To: uri-review@mail2.ietf.org
Delivered-To: uri-review@mail2.ietf.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD8A5ABF1B81; Fri, 23 Jan 2026 04:23:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.197
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.197 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H5=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail2.ietf.org ([166.84.6.31]) by localhost (mail2.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6fWPR1J9Bx2V; Fri, 23 Jan 2026 04:23:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from seine.is.ed.ac.uk (seine.is.ed.ac.uk [129.215.17.202]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 84C03ABF1B7C; Fri, 23 Jan 2026 04:23:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from flakey.inf.ed.ac.uk (flakey.inf.ed.ac.uk [129.215.202.88]) by seine.is.ed.ac.uk (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 60NCN0Cv3569234 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 23 Jan 2026 12:23:00 GMT
Received: from lochinver.inf.ed.ac.uk (lochinver.inf.ed.ac.uk [129.215.24.150]) by flakey.inf.ed.ac.uk (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 60NCMxR3623524; Fri, 23 Jan 2026 12:22:59 GMT
Received: by lochinver.inf.ed.ac.uk (Postfix, from userid 27024) id 91FCC5C09E7; Fri, 23 Jan 2026 12:22:59 +0000 (GMT)
To: Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanandani@gmail.com>
References: <87zf669z4x.fsf@hobgoblin.ariadne.com> <0100019be639037e-5401829e-3666-454e-b2c1-e9ac65a04ac5-000000@email.amazonses.com> <e1356eb8-31ba-47ce-9a1f-8d42713184a9@betaapp.fastmail.com> <263D72B1-54D9-47BA-9787-8A3F3889A6ED@gmail.com>
From: "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2026 12:22:59 +0000
In-Reply-To: <263D72B1-54D9-47BA-9787-8A3F3889A6ED@gmail.com> (Mahesh Jethanandani's message of "Thu\, 22 Jan 2026 14\:12\:43 -0800")
Message-ID: <f5bjyx8y0v0.fsf@lochinver.inf.ed.ac.uk>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.101 (Gnus v5.10.10) XEmacs/21.5-b35 (linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Edinburgh-Scanned: at seine.is.ed.ac.uk
Message-ID-Hash: VDSS7BQUD6KF6M6QW7XOL334ZKAEU3OE
X-Message-ID-Hash: VDSS7BQUD6KF6M6QW7XOL334ZKAEU3OE
X-MailFrom: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-uri-review.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net>, Kent Watsen <kent+ietf@watsen.net>, "Dale R. Worley" <worley@ariadne.com>, tom petch <ietfa@btconnect.com>, art@ietf.org, "uri@w3.org" <uri@w3.org>, uri-review@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [Uri-review] Re: [art] Re: Alternative representation of URIs in YANG
List-Id: Proposed URI Schemes <uri-review.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/uri-review/uKDbEobzOfcQS3MuNntKgDysQuU>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/uri-review>
List-Help: <mailto:uri-review-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:uri-review-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:uri-review@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:uri-review-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:uri-review-leave@ietf.org>

Mahesh Jethanandani writes:

> How about we go with option 2 that limits the applicability of the definition to the following:
>
> The 'ietf-url' module defines a YANG 'grouping' for a URL described as a
> constrained subset of the URI defined in <relref section="3" target="RFC3986"/>.

Just changing the 'i' to a 'u' doesn't change the fact that it's no
longer a UR[IL] if it's restricted to 'HTTP', so IMHO it's still
misleading.

ht

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status