IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Uri-review] Request for review of "ab:" URI scheme

Cyrus Daboo <cyrus@daboo.name> Tue, 26 April 2011 15:44 UTC

Return-Path: <cyrus@daboo.name>
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 17592E077E for <uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 08:44:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YM2tgLvKdo-B for <uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 08:44:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from daboo.name (daboo.name [151.201.22.177]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E8E6E0681 for <uri-review@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 08:44:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by daboo.name (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6BE025F0B4; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 11:44:13 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at daboo.name
Received: from daboo.name ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (chewy.daboo.name [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0aipTMrsggIc; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 11:44:13 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [17.101.34.182] (unknown [151.201.22.177]) by daboo.name (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A9C5725F0A9; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 11:44:12 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 11:44:17 -0400
From: Cyrus Daboo <cyrus@daboo.name>
To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, Graham Klyne <GK-lists@ninebynine.org>
Message-ID: <0E82FA0E66DC3ABE22989712@[17.101.34.182]>
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTimBP3zHOEn4F_S8-LhqK6+9AkXm6Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <BANLkTim8eWcWwKfyERghK2tuSP1rK0SdsA@mail.gmail.com> <4DB1D685.4090706@ninebynine.org> <4DB5D6EE.4080503@isode.com> <4DB6B9B6.8040306@ninebynine.org> <BANLkTinMm0OyBqUNTU_-Er_4w1TK7kW-Eg@mail.gmail.com> <4DB6D2C8.4090806@ninebynine.org> <BANLkTimBP3zHOEn4F_S8-LhqK6+9AkXm6Q@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.1.0a1 (Mac OS X)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline; size="1246"
Cc: uri-review@ietf.org, draft-ietf-sieve-external-lists.all@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Uri-review] Request for review of "ab:" URI scheme
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, 26 Apr 2011 15:44:15 -0000

Hi Barry,

--On April 26, 2011 11:17:32 AM -0400 Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> 
wrote:

> The idea here is that an unadorned addrbook URI refers to an "address
> book" -- that is, a set of address book entries.  Extension elements
> can further specify that, reducing the set, or specifying individual
> entries.  Consider (and don't worry about syntax here):
>
> 1. addrbook:personal
> 2. addrbook:personal?name.contains=fred
> 3. addrbook:personal?email=fred@example.com
> 4. addrbook:personal?entry=314159265
>
> The first clearly provides a "whole book", a set of entries.  The
> second is likely to give a set of entries, but the set could have
> cardinality 1.  The third is likely to give a set of cardinality 1,
> but it's possible for it to be > 1.  The fourth is specifying a single
> entry by its unique ID.

OK, so now I am getting nervous too. What you have just sketched out above 
is an address book access API. I think this goes way beyond the scope of 
what was needed in SIEVE. It crosses the boundaries of a whole bunch of 
other protocols: CardDAV, LDAP, the W3C contacts api etc. Some of those 
already have URIs that can encode query strings (LDAP) so why are we going 
to re-invent the wheel here?

-- 
Cyrus Daboo

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email