Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-op3ft-leaptofrogans-uri-scheme-03

[Benjamin PHISTER]

Hi Alissa, Hi Erik,

Sorry that we didn't respond directly to your comment, Erik.

Following your suggestion and after a brief discussion with Alexey and 
Peter, we added examples to the I-D starting with version -04, at the 
end of section 4.1, as follows:



Examples of 'leaptofrogans' URIs:

-  if the Frogans address is the string of US-ASCII characters
   "Network-Name*Site-Name":

 leaptofrogans:Network-Name*Site-Name

-  if the Frogans address is the string of Unicode characters U+7F51,
   U+7EDC, U+540D, U+002A, U+7AD9, U+540D (which is a Chinese
   translation of the Frogans address in the previous example):

 leaptofrogans:%E7%BD%91%E7%BB%9C%E5%90%8D*%E7%AB%99%E5%90%8D


Thanks again for your input!

Alissa, we will respond to the IPR questions you raised and to Brad's 
comments within a couple of hours.


Best regards,

Ben and Alexis



*From:* Alissa Cooper 
*Subject:* [Gen-art] Genart last call review of 
draft-op3ft-leaptofrogans-uri-scheme-03

*Date:* Wednesday, Feb 6, 2019 10:51 PM CET
*To:* e...@loon.co
*Cc:* Dale Worley , IETF Gen-ART , 
Erik Kline , 
draft-op3ft-leaptofrogans-uri-scheme@ietf.org


Erik, thanks for your review. I entered a DISCUSS position to ask an 
IPR question and pointed to your review.


Alissa

On Nov 13, 2018, at 11:53 PM, Erik Kline <mailto:e...@loon.co>> wrote:


On Tue, 13 Nov 2018 at 20:23, Dale R. Worley <mailto:wor...@ariadne.com>wrote:


Erik Kline <mailto:ek=40google@dmarc.ietf.org>> writes:
Nits/editorial comments: I can't help but wonder if an example or 
two wouldn't
round out the document.  But maybe leaptofrogans: URIs/IRIs aren't 
amenable to

constructing an example?


I agree in principle with this.  Looking at reference [IFAP], here are
two examples:

   leaptofrogans:mynetwork*mysite
   leaptofrogans:my-network*MySite

The syntax of frogan addresses is very carefully specified, but most of
the work seems to revolve around using Unicode well:  Frogans are fully
internationalized, so there's a lot of work in [IFAP] specifying how to
use Unicode so that an address aligns with the intuitive sense of "a
text string".

But beyond the fact that a frogan address is split into two parts by a
"*" character, there isn't much syntax that's easily displayed by a
series of ASCII examples.


I understand about the limitations of the current RFC format w.r.t.
non-ASCII characters (but I suspect you wouldn't want to wait for the
new format to be readily available :-).

FWIW I think those two examples would be perfectly fine.  They may not
seem overly expressive or especially illustrative, but including them
might scratch an itch for some readers.

But it's certainly not anything worth holding up publication for, IMHO.

___
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org <mailto:Gen-art@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art




--
Benjamin Phister
Head of Technical Specifications
benjamin.phis...@op3ft.org

OP3FT
6 square Mozart
75016 Paris - France
Tel: +33 1 5392 0040
https://www.op3ft.org/
frogans*op3ft

___
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-op3ft-leaptofrogans-uri-scheme-03

[Alissa Cooper]

Erik, thanks for your review. I entered a DISCUSS position to ask an IPR 
question and pointed to your review.

Alissa

> On Nov 13, 2018, at 11:53 PM, Erik Kline  wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 13 Nov 2018 at 20:23, Dale R. Worley  > wrote:
>> 
>> Erik Kline  writes:
>>> Nits/editorial comments: I can't help but wonder if an example or two 
>>> wouldn't
>>> round out the document.  But maybe leaptofrogans: URIs/IRIs aren't amenable 
>>> to
>>> constructing an example?
>> 
>> I agree in principle with this.  Looking at reference [IFAP], here are
>> two examples:
>> 
>>leaptofrogans:mynetwork*mysite
>>leaptofrogans:my-network*MySite
>> 
>> The syntax of frogan addresses is very carefully specified, but most of
>> the work seems to revolve around using Unicode well:  Frogans are fully
>> internationalized, so there's a lot of work in [IFAP] specifying how to
>> use Unicode so that an address aligns with the intuitive sense of "a
>> text string".
>> 
>> But beyond the fact that a frogan address is split into two parts by a
>> "*" character, there isn't much syntax that's easily displayed by a
>> series of ASCII examples.
> 
> I understand about the limitations of the current RFC format w.r.t.
> non-ASCII characters (but I suspect you wouldn't want to wait for the
> new format to be readily available :-).
> 
> FWIW I think those two examples would be perfectly fine.  They may not
> seem overly expressive or especially illustrative, but including them
> might scratch an itch for some readers.
> 
> But it's certainly not anything worth holding up publication for, IMHO.
> 
> ___
> Gen-art mailing list
> Gen-art@ietf.org 
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art 
> 
___
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-op3ft-leaptofrogans-uri-scheme-03

[Erik Kline]

On Tue, 13 Nov 2018 at 20:23, Dale R. Worley  wrote:
>
> Erik Kline  writes:
> > Nits/editorial comments: I can't help but wonder if an example or two 
> > wouldn't
> > round out the document.  But maybe leaptofrogans: URIs/IRIs aren't amenable 
> > to
> > constructing an example?
>
> I agree in principle with this.  Looking at reference [IFAP], here are
> two examples:
>
> leaptofrogans:mynetwork*mysite
> leaptofrogans:my-network*MySite
>
> The syntax of frogan addresses is very carefully specified, but most of
> the work seems to revolve around using Unicode well:  Frogans are fully
> internationalized, so there's a lot of work in [IFAP] specifying how to
> use Unicode so that an address aligns with the intuitive sense of "a
> text string".
>
> But beyond the fact that a frogan address is split into two parts by a
> "*" character, there isn't much syntax that's easily displayed by a
> series of ASCII examples.

I understand about the limitations of the current RFC format w.r.t.
non-ASCII characters (but I suspect you wouldn't want to wait for the
new format to be readily available :-).

FWIW I think those two examples would be perfectly fine.  They may not
seem overly expressive or especially illustrative, but including them
might scratch an itch for some readers.

But it's certainly not anything worth holding up publication for, IMHO.

___
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-op3ft-leaptofrogans-uri-scheme-03

[Dale R. Worley]

Erik Kline  writes:
> Nits/editorial comments: I can't help but wonder if an example or two wouldn't
> round out the document.  But maybe leaptofrogans: URIs/IRIs aren't amenable to
> constructing an example?

I agree in principle with this.  Looking at reference [IFAP], here are
two examples:

leaptofrogans:mynetwork*mysite
leaptofrogans:my-network*MySite

The syntax of frogan addresses is very carefully specified, but most of
the work seems to revolve around using Unicode well:  Frogans are fully
internationalized, so there's a lot of work in [IFAP] specifying how to
use Unicode so that an address aligns with the intuitive sense of "a
text string".

But beyond the fact that a frogan address is split into two parts by a
"*" character, there isn't much syntax that's easily displayed by a
series of ASCII examples.

Dale

___
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

[Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-op3ft-leaptofrogans-uri-scheme-03

[Erik Kline]

Reviewer: Erik Kline
Review result: Ready with Nits

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at

.

Document: draft-op3ft-leaptofrogans-uri-scheme-??
Reviewer: Erik Kline
Review Date: 2018-11-12
IETF LC End Date: 2018-11-13
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary: Seems perfectly fine to me, though (per nit below) one or two examples
might help a reader unfamiliar with Frogans (such as myself).

URI vs IRI seems consistent with my current understanding.

Major issues:

Minor issues:

Nits/editorial comments: I can't help but wonder if an example or two wouldn't
round out the document.  But maybe leaptofrogans: URIs/IRIs aren't amenable to
constructing an example?


___
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art