Subject: [apps-discuss] Comments on draft-ietf-appsawg-uri-get-off-my-lawn-01

From: Dave Thaler <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2014 08:30:55 +0000

I send some comments to the author last week, most of which are just
editorial nits (for anyone else who cares to see all editorial feedback, see
http://research.microsoft.com/~dthaler/draft-ietf-appsawg-uri-get-off-my-lawn-01.pdf).

A summary of my feedback is:
1) I agree with the points others have made about a couple statements 
    being too web/HTTP specific.   This should be straightforward to fix
    with a bit of wordsmithing.
2) Some of the guidance needs (in my view) to be fixed up regarding
    how it applies to scheme-defining specifications, which are by 
    definition "owners".  For example, some places (correctly) state that
    constraining the syntax is the purview of the owner not other folks, 
    but other places say more generally that it's inappropriate to constrain 
    the syntax more than RFC 3986 does.    The latter needs to be fixed to 
    not apply to scheme defining documents.
3) The guidance for "extensions" needs elaboration.  For example, why
    was it ok for RFC 5785 to add structure to the path for HTTP URIs, but
    not ok for something else to do so for some other scheme, or for 
    something else to do so for the (say) query component for some 
    scheme?  Currently sections 2.2 and 2.3 bless the former and disallows
    everything else, without explanation of why that one should be special.

-Dave