W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > July 2011

Re: [apps-discuss] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-yevstifeyev-ftp-uri-scheme-04.txt

From: Frank Ellermann <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2011 19:37:18 +0200
Message-ID: <CAHhFybq563a9+ivYuk83J3po_02nopeiu=mB3fO26f-o1Mwt0A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <evnikita2@gmail.com>
Cc: URI <uri@w3.org>, Apps-discuss list <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
On 7 July 2011 16:54, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:

>> draft-yevstifeyev-ftp-uri-scheme-04.txt

Hi, this draft is apparently very near to ready.  Hopefully that
is also the case for the normative reference to an FTP extension,
otherwise a published FTP URI RFC would be better than a blocked
I-D waiting for the extension.

The "motd" example in RFC 1738 is very instructive, please adopt
it in this draft.  In the security considerations please note
again and explicitly that user:pass (for user != anonymous) is
not more state of the art.

The anonymous:mail construct is also not more state of the art
for privacy reasons, unless it is a mail address in TLD invalid
or similar.

In section 2.3 you apparently want IRIs, that would be RFC 3987
instead of 3986.

Somewhere you should explain that FTP URIs have no query part.
Any "?" or "#" meant to be used in the path has to be encoded.

OTOH FTP URIs do have fragments, an unencoded "#" starts the
fragment and is interpreted (or ignored) by clients depending
on the document.  Just repeating what RFC 3986 already says
might be boring, but you could offer examples (encoded "?",
encoded "#", fragment "#" - if you like RFC 5147 use it in a fragment example).

JFTR, I can confirm that Mykta tried the arguably required
good faith effort to post to the very obscure uri.arpa list.
Maybe the IESG could subscribe an "archive account" to get a
public archive of this obscure IANA list.

-Frank
Received on Friday, 8 July 2011 17:38:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 8 July 2011 17:38:08 GMT