Subject: Re: Generic URI syntax incompatible with IPv6 addresses in SIP URIs

From: "Martin J. Dürst" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2009 17:34:37 +0900

I agree with Julian that discussion about updates of RFC 3987 (IRI spec,
new version currently at draft-duerst-iri-bis-05) should go to
[email-masked], whereas bug reports and discussions about RFC 3986
(URI spec) should go to [email-masked].

But Lisa, you are the AD who eventually has to handle anything that 
comes out of these drafts, so I'm glad to follow your directions.

Julian, could you be more specific (pointer is sufficient) about what 
you mean below with "potential issue (normalization)"?

Regards,    Martin.

On 2009/04/01 6:05, Julian Reschke wrote:
> Lisa Dusseault wrote:
>> Well, I'm confused. "Moving" was a loose term, but I did think I
>> heard that we should join "public-?ri" (didn't hear very clearly at
>> the bar bof) and "public-iri" was the match I found. Since I'm a
>> newcomer to either list (URI work has been pretty slow while I've been
>> AD), just let me know which list we should use to discuss updating the
>> IETF URI RFCs.
>
> Well, we've got both
>
> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-iri/>
>
> and
>
> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/uri/>
>
> As far as I can tell, the discussion is about:
>
> - a potential issue with the IRI spec (normalization)
>
> and
>
> - a potential addition already drafted in RFC3987bis (LEIRIs)
>
> In particular, I haven't seen any bugs reported against RFC3986 in this
> context (except the lack of error handling requirements, which clearly
> is controversial).
>
> Thus, it seems that we are really talking about RFC3987bis, and thus the
> IRI mailing list would be the right place.
>
> BR, Julian
> _______________________________________________
> Apps-Discuss mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
>

-- 
#-# Martin J.Dürst, Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-# http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp   mailto:[email-masked]

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2009 10:52:15 +0200

> you mean below with "potential issue (normalization)"?

It's the one raised by Anne vK: Section 3.1 requires different IRI->URI 
behavior depending on the encoding of the source document:

    Step 1.  Generate a UCS character sequence from the original IRI
             format.  This step has the following three variants,
             depending on the form of the input:

             a. If the IRI is written on paper, read aloud, or otherwise
                represented as a sequence of characters independent of
                any character encoding, represent the IRI as a sequence
                of characters from the UCS normalized according to
                Normalization Form C (NFC, [UTR15]).

             b. If the IRI is in some digital representation (e.g., an
                octet stream) in some known non-Unicode character
                encoding, convert the IRI to a sequence of characters
                from the UCS normalized according to NFC.

             c. If the IRI is in a Unicode-based character encoding (for
                example, UTF-8 or UTF-16), do not normalize (see section
                5.3.2.2 for details).  Apply step 2 directly to the
                encoded Unicode character sequence.

It would be helpful to understand where exactly this requirement comes 
from, and whether we have evidence it's being implemented (or even 
implementable; the source document encoding may not be known at the 
moment where the URI->IRI conversion occurs).

BR, Julian

---

From: Mark Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 16:29:30 -0400

On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 3:31 PM, Lisa Dusseault
<[email-masked]> wrote:
> There is at least one relevant list: [email-masked].  I believe
> that's where discussion of updating the base URI specs is moving?  I'm
> trying to join myself.

Moving, really?  I hadn't heard anything about that.  I would have
thought [email-masked] would be the place to take this.

Mark.