ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

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

2008-08-07 21:35:48
At 6:04 PM -0700 8/7/08, Tim Bray wrote:
Well, it's not as if the presence of the "http:" scheme requires you
to use the protocol, and in fact a very high proportion of all
accesses to such resources go sideways through various caching schemes
and so on.   The notion that the scheme implies the protocol is a
common and very old misconception.


How did you measure the accesses to arrive at the conclusion
that a very high proportion of all such accesses to such
resources "go sideways through various caching schemes
and so on"?  Can you elaborate on what "and so on" means
here?

On your other point, the accuracy of the idea that the scheme
"implies the protocol" varies enormously.  Some schemes
are nearly pure identifier, without strong bindings to
a specific dereferencing protocol ( "tag" and "info" come
to mind).  But some schemes really do have a very
strong binding to specific protocol mechanics and
a specific URI in those schemes amount to instructions
as to how to engage in that.    See RFC 4501 for an example.
It defines the "dns" uri scheme,  using a
scheme definition that has a very explicit usage
model and that describes the common resolution mechanism
using the DNS.   It retains the point that other
resolution mechanisms are possible, but how to
use it in a DNS context is both quite clear and quite
clearly understood to be the common case.

                        regards,
                                Ted


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

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