Re: revised "generic syntax" and "data:" internet drafts

Chris Newman <Chris.Newman@innosoft.com> Wed, 02 April 1997 03:24 UTC

Received: from cnri by ietf.org id aa07172; 1 Apr 97 22:24 EST
Received: from services.Bunyip.Com by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa25046; 1 Apr 97 22:24 EST
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by services.bunyip.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id WAA04697 for uri-out; Tue, 1 Apr 1997 22:03:52 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mocha.bunyip.com (mocha.Bunyip.Com [192.197.208.1]) by services.bunyip.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA04692 for <uri@services.bunyip.com>; Tue, 1 Apr 1997 22:03:50 -0500 (EST)
Received: from THOR.INNOSOFT.COM by mocha.bunyip.com with SMTP (5.65a/IDA-1.4.2b/CC-Guru-2b) id AA14299 (mail destined for uri@services.bunyip.com); Tue, 1 Apr 97 22:03:49 -0500
Received: from eleanor.innosoft.com by INNOSOFT.COM (PMDF V5.1-8 #8694) with SMTP id <01IH79X2FGKI8WWBMG@INNOSOFT.COM> for uri@bunyip.com; Tue, 1 Apr 1997 19:02:59 PST
Date: Tue, 01 Apr 1997 19:04:18 -0800
From: Chris Newman <Chris.Newman@innosoft.com>
Subject: Re: revised "generic syntax" and "data:" internet drafts
In-Reply-To: <334153DD.7495@parc.xerox.com>
To: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
Cc: IETF URI list <uri@bunyip.com>, ietf-url@imc.org
Message-Id: <Pine.SOL.3.95.970401184727.218c-100000@eleanor.innosoft.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"
Sender: owner-uri@bunyip.com
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, 1 Apr 1997, Larry Masinter wrote:

> I haven't seen announcements on these drafts, but there's
> a revised "generic syntax" draft:
> 
>   ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-fielding-url-syntax-04.txt

I think the ":<password>" should be removed from the default Internet
component.  Otherwise you encourage plaintext passwords (people will use
them anyway if really necessary).

I wrote the IMAP URL scheme based on what's in there and now I'm being
told to remove the password component.

> (There is also a revision of the 'process' document which I will send
> to the ietf-url list).

Section 2.1.3 largely duplicates section 2.5.

Section 2.2.2 has a "of of"

I think the process in section 3 is unworkable.  I'd suggest:
schemes for common use should be standards track or IESG approved
experimental
other schemes are informational RFCs (potentially with
references), but the IESG reserves the right to attach a usage advisory to
the document, and delegate review of such documents as necessary.
Use first-come, first-serve for ordering.

Simple processes are easier to administer.