Hi Hannes,
Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo) wrote:
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?
For once, I'd recommend to do it in a public place.
I note that Cullen asked for feedback on the uri-review mailing list
(good!), but nobody sent feedback to Frank Ellermann who did comment on
the URI issue (<http://article.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.uri-review/188>).
...
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 ...
Interesting, looking forward to understand the reasons.
Martin, can you provide a bit of background here?
...
BR, Julian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf