Just to be clear: I think the level of specification in this document
is appropriate and a "full" specification would be intractable.
But it would be useful to be just a bit more explicit about the things
that you should figure out before implementing (about what
other implementations do on the same platform).
Larry
--
http://larry.masinter.net
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf [mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Larry
Masinter
Sent: Tuesday, December 6, 2016 6:03 PM
To: Matthew Kerwin <matthew(_dot_)kerwin(_at_)qut(_dot_)edu(_dot_)au>; Barry
Leiba
<barryleiba(_at_)computer(_dot_)org>; draft-ietf-appsawg-file-
scheme(_dot_)all(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; secdir(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Cc: art(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; IETF discussion list <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>;
paul(_dot_)hoffman(_at_)vpnc(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: SecDir review of draft-ietf-appsawg-file-scheme-14
It’s a tiny thing, but where the abstract says “replacing the
definition in RFC 1738,” one may be led to think (I was) that 1738 has
a more robust definition than it does. D’you mind changing that to
something like this: ‘This document provides a full specification of
the "file" Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) scheme, replacing the
very brief definition in Section 3.10 of RFC 1738.’
s/full/more complete/
A “full” specification of file: URIs might include a set of platform and
file-system specific implementation advice about how to handle file
naming, variations in Unicode normalization, case sensitivity, and so
forth.