RE: [sysapps/raw socket api]: Status on outstanding issues and proposal to close a number of issues.

Yes, we need to approach IANA if we decide that we want to propose udp: and tcp: schemes. However, as you state below, we are not talking about general URI schemes that can be used anywhere URIs can be used. Instead these potential URI schemes are to be used in very specific cases. I still need to be convinced on the advantage of using URI schemes instead of address/port, which is very natural for a raw socket API. So before going to IANA we need a clear decision in this WG.

BR
  Claes

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonas Sicking [mailto:jonas@sicking.cc]
> Sent: den 3 juli 2013 11:26
> To: Nilsson, Claes1
> Cc: public-sysapps@w3.org
> Subject: Re: [sysapps/raw socket api]: Status on outstanding issues and
> proposal to close a number of issues.
> 
> Honestly, I think IANA is best positioned to answer this question. And
> no matter what, if we decide to use a URI it means that we need to go
> through IANA anyway. So I think discussing with IANA is going to be
> more productive than discussing within the sysapps WG.
> 
> / Jonas
> 
> On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 1:34 AM, Nilsson, Claes1
> <Claes1.Nilsson@sonymobile.com> wrote:
> > Thanks Jonas,
> >
> >
> >
> > I suggest that we have this issue at the agenda for the F2F meeting
> in
> > Toronto.
> >
> >
> >
> > BR
> >
> >   Claes
> >
> >
> >
> > From: Jonas Sicking [mailto:jonas@sicking.cc]
> > Sent: den 2 juli 2013 22:43
> > To: Nilsson, Claes1
> > Cc: public-sysapps@w3.org
> > Subject: Re: [sysapps/raw socket api]: Status on outstanding issues
> > and proposal to close a number of issues.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 8:47 AM, Nilsson, Claes1
> > <Claes1.Nilsson@sonymobile.com> wrote:
> >
> > address + port vs uri, https://github.com/sysapps/raw-
> sockets/issues/17:
> >
> > I think we need more discussion on this proposal. Personally I need
> to
> > get a better view on advantages/disadvantages of using URI addresses
> > instead of explicit IP-address and port arguments.
> >
> >
> >
> > I would recommend reaching out to IANA on this, and possibly the W3C
> > webapps working group.
> >
> > In general on the web platform, any URI can be used anywhere URIs can
> > be used. So a blob: or a filesystem: URI works in <img src="..."> as
> > well <iframe src="..."> and XMLHttpRequest.open("GET", "...").
> >
> > That wouldn't be the case with a tcp: scheme or a udp: scheme.
> >
> > However, it's also not the case with ws: or wss:. In fact, tcp: and
> udp:
> > work pretty similarly to ws: and wss:.
> >
> > Generally I don't have a strong opinion, but minting new schemes tend
> > to be a pretty political thing that you generally want to stay away
> > from. But it might be the right thing to do.
> >
> > / Jonas

Received on Wednesday, 3 July 2013 10:23:22 UTC