Re: Last Call: draft-gregorio-uritemplate-07.txt (URI Template) to Proposed Standard
On 28/11/2011 23:42, The IESG wrote: The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider the following document: - 'URI Template' draft-gregorio-uritemplate-07.txt as a Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2011-12-26. Exceptionally, comments may be sent toi...@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract A URI Template is a compact sequence of characters for describing a range of Uniform Resource Identifiers through variable expansion. This specification defines the URI Template syntax and the process for expanding a URI Template into a URI reference, along with guidelines for the use of URI Templates on the Internet. I've read the document and I believe it is a solid spec, that addresses important usecases. I don't have any additional comments to what was already reported by Jiankang in his Apps Directorate review. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Last Call: draft-gregorio-uritemplate-07.txt (URI Template)
Incidentally I get acsmt358.oracle.com #5.1.1 SMTP; 550 5.1.1 Recipient unknown for marc.had...@oracle.com and r...@fireeye-mail.emps.mitre.org: delivery temporarily suspended: connect to fireeye-mail.emps.mitre.org[129.83.4.94]:25: Connection timed out for mhad...@mitre.org; which may or may not matter. I assume that these are part of the draft-gregorio-uritempl...@tools.ietf.org draft-gregorio-uritempl...@tools.ietf.org exploder so I have removed it from this. Tom Petch - Original Message - From: Mark Nottingham m...@mnot.net To: t.petch daedu...@btconnect.com Cc: IETF Discussion ietf@ietf.org; draft-gregorio-uritempl...@tools.ietf.org Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2011 4:02 AM Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-gregorio-uritemplate-07.txt (URI Template) On 03/12/2011, at 10:41 PM, t.petch wrote: Rather, I would insert 'reserved and unreserved are formally defined in section 1.5 using the same definitions as appear in [RFC3986]' after the first paragraph of 1.2. In SVN. Cheers, -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/ ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Last Call: draft-gregorio-uritemplate-07.txt (URI Template)
On 03/12/2011, at 10:41 PM, t.petch wrote: Rather, I would insert 'reserved and unreserved are formally defined in section 1.5 using the same definitions as appear in [RFC3986]' after the first paragraph of 1.2. In SVN. Cheers, -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/ ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Last Call: draft-gregorio-uritemplate-07.txt (URI Template)
- Original Message - From: Murray S. Kucherawy m...@cloudmark.com To: IETF Discussion ietf@ietf.org Sent: Saturday, December 03, 2011 1:50 AM -Original Message- From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of t.petch Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2011 2:51 AM To: Mark Nottingham Cc: IETF Discussion Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-gregorio-uritemplate-07.txt (URI Template) The examples are rather complicated. If I have a month to spare, I will work my way through them by which time, were I to find anything, doubtless it would be erratum time and no longer LC time. (How simple life was in the days of -00). Perhaps, but very valuable when testing my implementation of what this specification contains. If they are right:-). I grew up at a time when, famously, all worked examples in school textbooks contained errors, which we delighted in finding. I occasionally do the same with the manuals of leading manufacturers:-( Tom Petch ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Last Call: draft-gregorio-uritemplate-07.txt (URI Template)
- Original Message - From: Mark Nottingham m...@mnot.net To: t.petch daedu...@btconnect.com Cc: IETF Discussion ietf@ietf.org; draft-gregorio-uritempl...@tools.ietf.org Sent: Saturday, December 03, 2011 1:47 AM On 01/12/2011, at 9:50 PM, t.petch wrote: 2.3 Is undefined formally defined? This section suggests that 'undef' or 'null', inter alia, may be used to undefine a variable while 3.2 uses 'null'. I see no more formal definition of how to undefine a variable, as opposed to it having a value or having an empty value. Based on previous feedback, we're making a forward reference to 3.2.1 to clarify this. 1.2 worth pointing out that 'reserved' and 'unreserved' are formally defined in 1.5, to stop people reaching for RFC3986. If this is an issue, I'd actually prefer to place the notational conventions section higher in the document. Thoughts? tp No, I would not. I think that this I-D, unlike many, gets the sequence right, of explanation, formal definition and then the nitty-gritty. Moving 1.5 higher up would impair that. Rather, I would insert 'reserved and unreserved are formally defined in section 1.5 using the same definitions as appear in [RFC3986]' after the first paragraph of 1.2. Tom Petch The examples are rather complicated. If I have a month to spare, I will work my way through them by which time, were I to find anything, doubtless it would be erratum time and no longer LC time. (How simple life was in the days of -00). Thanks for the feedback, -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/ ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Last Call: draft-gregorio-uritemplate-07.txt (URI Template)
On 01/12/2011, at 9:50 PM, t.petch wrote: 2.3 Is undefined formally defined? This section suggests that 'undef' or 'null', inter alia, may be used to undefine a variable while 3.2 uses 'null'. I see no more formal definition of how to undefine a variable, as opposed to it having a value or having an empty value. Based on previous feedback, we're making a forward reference to 3.2.1 to clarify this. 1.2 worth pointing out that 'reserved' and 'unreserved' are formally defined in 1.5, to stop people reaching for RFC3986. If this is an issue, I'd actually prefer to place the notational conventions section higher in the document. Thoughts? The examples are rather complicated. If I have a month to spare, I will work my way through them by which time, were I to find anything, doubtless it would be erratum time and no longer LC time. (How simple life was in the days of -00). Thanks for the feedback, -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/ ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Last Call: draft-gregorio-uritemplate-07.txt (URI Template)
-Original Message- From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of t.petch Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2011 2:51 AM To: Mark Nottingham Cc: IETF Discussion Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-gregorio-uritemplate-07.txt (URI Template) The examples are rather complicated. If I have a month to spare, I will work my way through them by which time, were I to find anything, doubtless it would be erratum time and no longer LC time. (How simple life was in the days of -00). Perhaps, but very valuable when testing my implementation of what this specification contains. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Last Call: draft-gregorio-uritemplate-07.txt (URI Template)
On 3 December 2011 01:47, Mark Nottingham m...@mnot.net wrote: 1.2 worth pointing out that 'reserved' and 'unreserved' are formally defined in 1.5, to stop people reaching for RFC3986. If this is an issue, I'd actually prefer to place the notational conventions section higher in the document. Thoughts? Moving 1.5 to a position between 1.1 and 1.2 is a very good idea. It won't stop me from reaching for RFC 3986 again and again and again when I seriously try to grok syntactical details. Unrelated: IMHO it is perfectly okay to import ABNF terms such as SP, DQUOTE, and CTL even when they are only used in a comment. E.g., I had to check that 7F belongs to CTL in this draft, or that 80..9F don't in another draft (IRIbis). It is no problem that I'm forced to reach for STD 66 and 68 until I'll eventually know them by heart. -Frank ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Last Call: draft-gregorio-uritemplate-07.txt (URI Template)
On 30 November 2011 00:44, Mark Nottingham m...@mnot.net wrote: Not sure what you're saying here; the URI escape syntax is % HEXDIG HEXDIG. ACK, sorry for the confusion, I used the same ABNF hex. constructs as in the literals section for the square brackets. If the literal character [ occurs in a template, it'll also be copied into the result, since that's part of reserved (thanks to gen-delims). The intent here is definitely for a processor NOT to need to know what part of the URI it's in, since templates can make this ambiguous. Okay, that was answered my question, when the draft says anywhere it actually means anywhere, even if the output is no valid UEL. -Frank ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Last Call: draft-gregorio-uritemplate-07.txt (URI Template)
2.3 Is undefined formally defined? This section suggests that 'undef' or 'null', inter alia, may be used to undefine a variable while 3.2 uses 'null'. I see no more formal definition of how to undefine a variable, as opposed to it having a value or having an empty value. 1.2 worth pointing out that 'reserved' and 'unreserved' are formally defined in 1.5, to stop people reaching for RFC3986. The examples are rather complicated. If I have a month to spare, I will work my way through them by which time, were I to find anything, doubtless it would be erratum time and no longer LC time. (How simple life was in the days of -00). Tom Petch ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Last Call: draft-gregorio-uritemplate-07.txt (URI Template)
Hi Frank, Thanks for the feedback. Responses below. On 29/11/2011, at 8:23 PM, Frank Ellermann wrote: Hi, that's an important and good draft. Some editorial nits: In section 2.1 you use CTL, DQUOTE, and SP in a comment. Please add these terms to the ABNF imports in section 1.5. I'm -0 on this, as they're informative, whereas 1.5 is normative. In section 1.3 you mention WSDL, WADL and OpenSearch. Please add informative references and expand the acronyms. In SVN. Please update the TUS reference to 6.x. There are no changes wrt the concepts used in this draft (stability of non-characters, etc.), but I think UTR #15 is an integral part of TUS since 5.0 (?) In SVN. In section 3.1 you write: | If the literal character is allowed anywhere in the URI | syntax (unreserved / reserved / pct-encoded ), then it is | copied directly Do you mean is allowed in the given part of the URI here? What I have in mind are, e.g., %x5B and %x5D in a query or fragment. By definition in 2.1 these are literals, but have to be percent-encoded n STD 66 queries or fragments. Not sure what you're saying here; the URI escape syntax is % HEXDIG HEXDIG. If the literal string %x5B occurs in a template, it'll be copied into the result, since it looks like a percent-encoded (%x5) followed by a B. If the literal character [ occurs in a template, it'll also be copied into the result, since that's part of reserved (thanks to gen-delims). The intent here is definitely for a processor NOT to need to know what part of the URI it's in, since templates can make this ambiguous. -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/ ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
