ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: New schemes vs recycling "http:" (Re: Past LC comments ondraft-ietf-geopriv-http-location-delivery-08)

2008-08-07 03:14:13
I was asked to provide some pointers related to the design decisions we made in 
GEOPRIV. The GEOPRIV mailing list is a high-volume list and hence it is not fun 
to search through it. Anyway, I found some pointers of interest. 

Ted Hardie provided me with a few pointers around the URI scheme discussion: 
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/08mar/minutes/geopriv.txt

James Winterbottom pointed me to the mailing list thread I started some time 
ago:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/geopriv/current/msg04602.html

Here is another mailing list thread related to this topic: 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/geopriv/current/msg05567.html

Reading through the mails again I unfortunately cannot find a strong 
recommendations. It seems that reading through RFC 3205 we got confused.

Initially, the entire discussion started with LoST where we also solicited 
review for a URI scheme, see 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/uri-review/current/msg00601.html

I was pointed to RFC 3205 but we later decided not to define a lost URI scheme. 

In KEYPROV we ran into a similar issue. I also asked for review:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-review/current/msg00082.html
Here is the mailing list thread that resulted from my request for review: 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-review/current/msg00084.html

In that specific review request the issue of separate port numbers came up.

As one can seen from the mailing list discussions I was not in favor of 
defining a new URI scheme for HELD. Maybe we can/should reverse that decision...

Ciao
Hannes
 

-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org 
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On 
Behalf Of ext Patrik Fältström
Sent: 07 August, 2008 12:02
To: Harald Alvestrand
Cc: Julian Reschke; IETF Discussion; Thomson, Martin
Subject: Re: New schemes vs recycling "http:" (Re: Past LC 
comments ondraft-ietf-geopriv-http-location-delivery-08)

On 7 aug 2008, at 10.56, Harald Alvestrand wrote:

If a new URI scheme is defined, it needs to state what it 
identifies, 
and how it is resolved. If it identifies an HTTP resource, and 
resolution is done via HTTP, then it seems to me you don't need it.
Note: I totally disagree.

I detest, abhor and condemn the idea that there is such a thing as a 
"HTTP resource".

An URI identifies a resource.

FWIW: I agree with this. A URI is an identifier. Some of them 
might be possible to resolve using for example information 
given by the URI scheme, but that is definitely not a 
requirement. And it has never been one either.

   Patrik

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>