Hi Christer, Thank you for your comments.
On Tue, Nov 29, 2016, at 10:34 AM, Christer Holmberg wrote: > > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on > Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at > <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq> > > Document: draft-ietf-appsawg-file-scheme-14.txt > Reviewer: Christer Holmberg > Review Date: 29 November 2016 > IETF LC End Date: 6 December 2016 > IETF Telechat Date: N/A > > Summary: I don’t have any major comments regarding the technical > content of the draft. However, as seen in my comments below, I fail to > see exactly how RFC 1738 is updated. > > Major Issues: None > > Minor Issues: > > The Abstract text says: > > "This document specifies the "file" Uniform Resource Identifier > (URI) scheme, replacing the definition in RFC 1738.” > > Q1: I suggest that the text should say that the document “updates the > file URI scheme defined in RFC 1738”. This is not really useful, because RFC 1738 was already obsoleted (but file URI definition was never update). > > Q2: Related to Q1, in RFC 1738 the “file” scheme is defined as a URL, > but in the draft it is defined as a URI. What is the reason for > that? The term URL (Uniform Resource Locator) was replaced by a more generic URI (Uniform Resource Identifier). Historically, some URIs were "locators" and some were "names", but more recently a lot of URIs exhibit both qualities. Thus the term URL should not be used. > > Q3: Related to Q1, it is unclear exactly what parts of the RFC 1738 > scheme is updated. For example, is the syntax updated, is the > usage scope updated etc? The second > paragraph says something, but it is unclear whether it’s > related to the actual update, or whether it just provides some > information regarding the usage > of the scheme. Everything is updated. The original RFC doesn't need to be read. > > The Acknowledgements section says that the draft is “derived” from RFC > 1739. What does “derived” mean? I think there should be clear and > explicit text about exactly what is updated. > > Q4: Related to Q3, the text says that things are backward compatible > in “most situations”. I think a little more text is needed, and > e.g., examples of non-backward compatibility. > > Q5: I see that RFC 1738 is only a Informative Reference. Someone can > correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t it have to be Normative since > the draft is normatively (I assume) updating the RFC? No (as per above). > > Editorial Issues: None
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
