Hi Christer,
On Tue, Nov 29, 2016, at 12:34 PM, Christer Holmberg wrote: > Hi Alexey, > > Thanks for your reply! It clarifies my issues. > > However, for other outsiders like me, I think it would be really good > to add some text about that in the draft. Explicitly say that the > draft updates RFC 1738 by *obsoleting* the files URL scheme, defines a > new URI scheme based on the procedures in RFC 3986. Because, as an > outsider, it’s really difficult for me to figure that out, and e.g., > determine what/if I need to read RFC 1738 etc. Also, the text should > not only cover the technical changes (syntax etc), but also if there > are changes regarding the usage etc. I think this is fair. I will let the editor come up with some proposal. Best Regards, Alexey > Regards, > > Christer > > > *From: *Alexey Melnikov <[email protected]> *Date: *Tuesday 29 > November 2016 at 14:00 *To: *Christer Holmberg > <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <gen- > [email protected]> *Cc: *"draft-ietf-appsawg-file- > [email protected]" <draft-ietf-appsawg-file- > [email protected]> *Subject: *Re: Gen-ART review of > draft-ietf-appsawg-file-scheme- > 14 > > > 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
