Hi Julian,
thanks for the extremely quick response:
Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo) wrote:
...
1) URI schemes
From the draft, it's totally unclear what the URI schemes
are needed
for. For instance, the registrations do not mention what the URIs
actually identity, and how to resolve them.
Well. Initially, we wanted to use HTTP URI scheme but we were told
that we shouldn't do that. Based on the advice we got we
created a new
URI scheme.
...
I think that's bad advice.
Either this decision should be reversed, or the specification
needs to be updated so that it actually *defines* the URI scheme.
Like with many other areas, you ask 5 persons and get 7 opinions.
How should a working group soliciting advice make an informed decisions?
...
2) HTTP examples
As far as I can tell, the examples in Section 11.1 are not really
HTTP, or I'm missing explanations that would be needed to
understand
this.
For instance, they use heldref URIs in the Request-Line of the
request.
Also, there's an example where a response uses the HTTP version
number "HTTP/1.x".
How would the examples have to look like so that they are correct?
As far as I can tell,
GET heldrefs://lis.example.com:49152/location HTTP/1.1
Accept:application/held+xml,
application/xml;q=0.8,
text/xml;q=0.7
Accept-Charset: UTF-8,*
needs to be:
GET /location HTTP/1.1
Host: lis.example.com:49152
Accept:application/held+xml,
application/xml;q=0.8,
text/xml;q=0.7
Accept-Charset: UTF-8,*
...which of course makes it obvious that the new URI scheme is
totally pointless.
We just recently updated our examples from the lower one to the upper
one. Martin Thomson might provide you more background on this issue
since he also told me to update other drafts ...
Martin, can you provide a bit of background here?
3) Usage of HTTP
The protocol tunnels over HTTP instead of using HTTP, probably
because it tries to be transport-agnostic. This makes only sense if
there are other transports. Are there?
The idea was to make it protocol agnostic and at least one other
transport has been published. Currently, the group tries to finish
some other work before these issues may be brought up again.
Even if the answer to that is "yes", HTTP semantics should
be obeyed;
if the response to a request is an error message, it shouldn't be
returned with status code 200. There's no problem using a 4xx class
status code and returning a custom body (as we do in WebDAV).
We copied this from other documents that went through the
IETF process.
We got told that returning a 200 OK is fine when the problem that
caused the error message happens to be at a different layer. So far,
that seemed to me like a pretty good answer and seems to be inline
with the semantic of protocol layering.
...
Is that discussion archived somewhere? Where did it happen?
I have to search through the ECRIT and GEOPRIV mailing list -- 2 lists
with a lot of mail.
Ciao
Hannes
BR, Julian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf