> On 16 Jul 2019, at 21:29, Barry Leiba <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> I would personally not suggest using IRIs here, given that the scheme >>> (https) is expected to retrieve a resource at a well-known location and >>> thus will always have to be mapped to a URI to do the retrieval (rather >>> than used in a string comparison or something similar) . RFC 5280, >>> which this cites, actually goes through the steps pretty well, and I >>> think the complexity there demonstrates the advantage for constrained >>> devices of always using the URI form. >> >> I have changed the references from IRI to URL, and the components from >> iauthority to 'authority'. > > I think the best thing for IETF documents is to use "URI" (rather than > "URL"), and to cite RFC 3986.
And that really is what this is: it’s a URI. Call them RESTful calls or call them something else but they look and smell quite RESTful to me, and REST requires URIs, and 3986 is a great reference. Eliot > > The W3C, via the WHATWG, is (re-)defining "URL", and we *could* cite > that work. That would not be my preference here. > > Barry > > _______________________________________________ > Anima mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
