Hi Christer, Thanks for the review, it dovetails nicely with other feedback I've received.
Elsewhere this text has been suggested for the abstract: > 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. Does that go some way to resolve the ambiguity there? It doesn't use the words "update" or "obsolete" but it seems to me that it says what it needs to. The acknowledgements section has also been flagged, and I will work on updating that. The remaining chunky bit of feedback I'm yet to address is about what non-backwards compatible changes are being made. I'll have to redo a bit of research to address this, to make sure I don't inadvertently lie, but it's definitely been taken on board. I'm hoping to say something along the lines of: "it aims to be backwards compatible except where incremental changes are inherited from specifications published since RFC 1738." That's pretty much what it says in Appendix A. Cheers -- Matthew Kerwin | Queensland University of Technology | [email protected] | CRICOS No 00213J ________________________________ From: Christer Holmberg <[email protected]> Sent: 30 November 2016 20:26:54 To: Alexey Melnikov; [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-appsawg-file-scheme-14 Hi, >>Thanks for your reply! It clarifies my issues. >> >>However, for other outsiders like me, I think it would be really good to add >>some text about that in the draft. Explicitly say that the draft updates RFC >>1738 by obsoleting the files URL scheme, defines a new URI scheme based on >>the procedures in RFC 3986. Because, as an outsider, it’s really difficult >>for me to figure that out, and e.g., determine what/if I need to read RFC >>1738 etc. Also, the text should not only cover the technical changes (syntax >>etc), but also if there are changes regarding the usage etc. > >I think this is fair. I will let the editor come up with some proposal. Thanks! I also suggest to remove the “derived” text from the Acknowledgements. Of course, the authors of RFC 1738 can still be acknowledged :) Regards, Christer From: Alexey Melnikov <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Tuesday 29 November 2016 at 14:00 To: Christer Holmberg <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-appsawg-file-scheme-14 Hi Christer, Thank you for your comments. On Tue, Nov 29, 2016, at 10:34 AM, Christer Holmberg wrote: I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq> Document: draft-ietf-appsawg-file-scheme-14.txt Reviewer: Christer Holmberg Review Date: 29 November 2016 IETF LC End Date: 6 December 2016 IETF Telechat Date: N/A Summary: I don’t have any major comments regarding the technical content of the draft. However, as seen in my comments below, I fail to see exactly how RFC 1738 is updated. Major Issues: None Minor Issues: The Abstract text says: "This document specifies the "file" Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) scheme, replacing the definition in RFC 1738.” Q1: I suggest that the text should say that the document “updates the file URI scheme defined in RFC 1738”. This is not really useful, because RFC 1738 was already obsoleted (but file URI definition was never update). Q2: Related to Q1, in RFC 1738 the “file” scheme is defined as a URL, but in the draft it is defined as a URI. What is the reason for that? The term URL (Uniform Resource Locator) was replaced by a more generic URI (Uniform Resource Identifier). Historically, some URIs were "locators" and some were "names", but more recently a lot of URIs exhibit both qualities. Thus the term URL should not be used. Q3: Related to Q1, it is unclear exactly what parts of the RFC 1738 scheme is updated. For example, is the syntax updated, is the usage scope updated etc? The second paragraph says something, but it is unclear whether it’s related to the actual update, or whether it just provides some information regarding the usage of the scheme. Everything is updated. The original RFC doesn't need to be read. The Acknowledgements section says that the draft is “derived” from RFC 1739. What does “derived” mean? I think there should be clear and explicit text about exactly what is updated. Q4: Related to Q3, the text says that things are backward compatible in “most situations”. I think a little more text is needed, and e.g., examples of non-backward compatibility. Q5: I see that RFC 1738 is only a Informative Reference. Someone can correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t it have to be Normative since the draft is normatively (I assume) updating the RFC? No (as per above). Editorial Issues: None _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
