Subject: [apps-discuss] File URI Scheme

From: Matthew Kerwin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 13:34:02 +1000

Hi, it recently came up in a discussion on the ruby core developers'
mailing list <https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/8544> that there is
currently no living standard defining the file: URI scheme.  Somewhat
bullheadedly I created my own I-D, based on RFC 1738 and an expired
draft by Paul Hoffman; however it occurs to me that this should
probably be under the purview of the Apps Area Working Group.

Would you please consider creating a draft for the file: URI scheme
(or taking over my existing draft); or if not, point me to some
resources or discussions about why the file scheme seems to have gone
out of vogue?

The current revision of my draft is
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kerwin-file-scheme-03> , and the
working copy is on github
<https://github.com/phluid61/file-uri-scheme>

Cheers
-- 
  Matthew Kerwin, B.Sc (CompSci) (Hons)
  http://matthew.kerwin.net.au/

---

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 09:54:11 -0700

On Jun 24, 2013, at 8:34 PM, Matthew Kerwin <[email-masked]> wrote:

> draft by Paul Hoffman

...without asking me. :-) If you had, I would have warned you of the futility of such an effort. There is no general agreement on how this URI scheme should work, and different implementations act wildly different. The reason I dropped the effort was not lack of interest: it was too much interest from people who knew the one true way.

Having said that, maybe your enthusiasm will trump my cynicism. If so, the Internet will be a more interoperable place.

> ; however it occurs to me that this should

No opinion.

> resources or discussions about why the file scheme seems to have gone

It is *not* out of vogue: it is still widely employed in many areas.

--Paul Hoffman

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 11:24:23 -0700

> <https://github.com/phluid61/file-uri-scheme>
By "creating a draft", are you asking APPSAWG to adopt yours, or are you
asking us to come up with something else and process that?

-MSK, APPSAWG co-chair

---

From: "Martin J. Dürst" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 10:25:32 +0900

Hello Kerwin,

On 2013/06/26 3:24, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 8:34 PM, Matthew Kerwin<[email-masked]>wrote:
>

To be more specific:

"come up with something else and process that" means that somebody would 
volunteer to become an author/editor. I wouldn't know anybody here who 
would volunteer (of course I might be wrong).

"adopt yours" would mean that you would republish your draft as 
something like draft-ietf-appsawg-file-scheme-00, and continue as the 
author/editor. The WG would mostly help with reviewing the draft, and 
the WG chairs (and maybe others) would help with shepherding the draft 
through the process.

My personal opinion is that it would indeed be desirable to have a 
specification (*) for the file: URI scheme. However, as Paul said in a 
separate mail, and as I indicated a few days ago at 
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/8544#note-4 (sorry for mixing up file: 
and ftp:), the file: URI scheme is really messy.

So my opinion would be that you work on your draft a some more, trying 
to get help from wherever you can find it (including of course this 
group), and formally come back here when you think that you have 
something that may be widely acceptable.

Regards,    Martin.

(*) Note that "living standard" is a very specific term used mostly by 
WHATWG, see 
http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/FAQ#What_does_.22Living_Standard.22_mean.3F.

---

From: t.petch <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 10:44:22 +0100

Well, you have created a draft, which is more than most manage when
first they approach the IETF, so I assume you do have an understanding
of what it takes.  That said, there are a number of changes you would
have to make for it to conform to the layout of an RFC but that can be
done.

You may not know that there is a mailing list dedicated to URI,
[email-masked]
which is the usual home for URI discussions.  The archive contains
discussions of file: and in particular, Paul's comments in May 2005
about not reaching consensus; probably worth a look.

Tom Petch

----- Original Message -----
From: "Matthew Kerwin" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 4:34 AM

> _______________________________________________
> apps-discuss mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
>

---

From: Matthew Kerwin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 11:10:54 +1000

> asking us to come up with something else and process that?

I guess I was leaving that up to the WG to decide, but my proposal is
to adopt my draft and build on it from there.

---

From: t.petch <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2013 12:26:52 +0100

Were the WG Chairs to undertake a poll as to whether or not this I-D is
adopted, I would oppose that request at this time

Two reasons
First; should this be discussed in whole or part on the URI list?  I
think that that needs resolving before adoption.

Second; it is not in the right format for an IETF I-D; I think most of
what
I have in mind would show up with a nits check, and these should be
fixed
first (given that much of the rest comes from an expired I-D, which was
discussed on the URI :-)

Tom Petch

----- Original Message -----
From: "Matthew Kerwin" <[email-masked]>
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "IETF Apps Discuss" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2013 2:10 AM
> > On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 8:34 PM, Matthew Kerwin
<[email-masked]>
> > wrote: