Subject: [apps-discuss] I-D Action: draft-ietf-appsawg-file-scheme-01.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 01:06:48 -0700

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
 This draft is a work item of the Applications Area Working Group Working Group of the IETF.

        Title           : The file URI Scheme
        Author          : Matthew Kerwin
	Filename        : draft-ietf-appsawg-file-scheme-01.txt
	Pages           : 17
	Date            : 2015-04-14

Abstract:
   This document specifies the "file" Uniform Resource Identifier (URI)
   scheme, obsoleting the definition in RFC 1738.

   It attemps to define a common core which is intended to interoperate
   across the broad spectrum of existing implementations, while at the
   same time documenting other current practices.

Note to Readers (To be removed by the RFC Editor)

   This draft should be discussed on the IETF Applications Area Working
   Group discussion list <[email-masked]>.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-appsawg-file-scheme/

There's also a htmlized version available at:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-appsawg-file-scheme-01

A diff from the previous version is available at:
http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-appsawg-file-scheme-01

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

---

From: Matthew Kerwin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 20:38:00 +1000

Hi again folks,

I managed to get a new version pushed out. It's not ready for publication,
but it should be ready for proper critique. Between -00 and -01 I focused
on addressing the broad thrust of the comments received so far, notably:

* cutting out everything but a central core from the normative syntax,
moving the non-universal bits to optional appendices

* less normative content and references, hopefully putting less burden on
implementers (especially those who are only mildly interested in supporting
the scheme)

* putting a bit more effort into defining meaningful operations

There are some obvious editorial issues, especially some incomplete text in
the appendices.  What I'd really appreciate advice on is:

1) whether the new structure broadly satisfies a bunch of the concerns that
have been raised, and

2) how to deal with the IANA Considerations section (especially considering
the uri-scheme-reg draft.) Back at draft-kerwin-file-scheme-11 it had a
fully fleshed out registration template, but somebody (I forget who, sorry)
suggested that I could replace it with the current (much terser) text.
Which way should I go with it?

I'm going to go back through the archives and see what remaining concerns
still apply, so I can create some issues in my github repository. Please
feel free to provide feedback and critique in the meantime.

Cheers!

On 14 April 2015 at 18:06, <[email-masked]> wrote:

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

-- 
  Matthew Kerwin
  http://matthew.kerwin.net.au/