Re: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-uri-get-off-my-lawn-00.txt

On 08/03/2013 08:18 AM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>
> On 02/08/2013, at 9:35 PM, David Booth <david@dbooth.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi Mark!
>
> Hi David,
>
>>
>> Regarding
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-uri-get-off-my-lawn-00
>> Nice work.  A few substantive comments:
>
> Thanks.
>
>>
>> 1. In section 2.3 and elsewhere, what is meant by an "application"?
>> And what is meant by an "extension"?  I think this needs to be
>> clarified.
>
> Right at the top of Section 2...

Yes indeed, my mistake.  I must have skimmed over that part.

I think it may help to use more distinctive terms than "application" and 
"extension" to make them stand out more, especially since: (a) these 
RFCs are plain text, so it isn't easy to see when a word or phrase is 
being used as a defined term; and (b) defining "application" to be a 
kind of specification is an unusual use of the term.

Also, where you say:
[[
    Requirements that target the generic class "Specifications" apply to
    all standards,
]]
When I first read that, I thought it was just giving background info on 
current practises.  But I am now guessing that it is a meta-comment to 
the reader about how to read the rest of the document.  If that is the 
intent, it may help to add something like: "Within this document, . . ."

>
>> 2. Somewhere the document should probably say explicitly that: (a)
>> URI owners may standardise the structure of their own URIs; but (b)
>> publishing that structure may make the structure hard to change
>> without breaking clients that have started depending on the old
>> structure.
>
> I want to keep this pretty focused on BCPs for standards, which have
> much bigger consequences. The draft does say that resource owners
> control their URIs; I'm using "standardize" in the IETF sense...

It might be good to explain that you are using the term in that sense.

But just to probe further, if a practice is bad to standardize in the 
IETF sense, why isn't it bad to "standardize" in a less formal sense, in 
a spec that an individual entity might put out?

It seems to me that if this RFC is saying "Don't write standards that do 
X", but it is okay for someone to do X on their own, then it might be 
helpful for this RFC to clarify the dividing line between when it is 
okay and when it isn't.

David

>
>>
>> 3. I think it would be good to address the question: Given that the
>> URI owner controls the structure of his/her URIs, what is wrong
>> with the URI owner choosing to adopt a structure that is specified
>> by someone else in a specification?
>
> Yes.
>
>
>>
>> And some editorial comments:
>>
>> 4. It would be good to use the term "squatting" somewhere -- maybe
>> in the title? -- since that is what this is commonly called.
>> DanC's early post about this problem:
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2000Sep/0162.html
>
>>
> Will take a look, thanks.
>
>>
>> 5. Regarding: [[ Client Assumptions - When conventions are
>> standardised, some clients will inevitably assume that the
>> standards are in use when they are seen. ]] Clarify: To what does
>> "they" refer?
>>
>> 6. The draft mentions the HTTP and HTTPS schemes (using UPPER case
>> letters), but as RFC3896 states:
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986#section-3.1 [[ Although schemes
>> are case- insensitive, the canonical form is lowercase and
>> documents that specify schemes must do so with lowercase letters.
>> ]]
>>
>> 7. Change: [[ all other specifications MUST NOT constrain, define
>> structure or semantics for them. ]] to: [[ all other specifications
>> MUST NOT constrain or define structure or semantics for any path
>> component. ]]
>>
>> 8. Misc: s/artefacts/artifacts/g s/be used preclude/be used
>> precludes/ s/party; its owner/party: its owner/
>>
>> Thanks, David
>
> Thank you!
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>>
>>
>> On 08/02/2013 01:38 AM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>>> FYI; this is an attempt to address a problem that's becoming more
>>> common in IETF specs as well as those elsewhere.
>>>
>>> Comments / suggestions welcome.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>>
>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>
>>>> From: internet-drafts@ietf.org Subject: New Version
>>>> Notification for draft-nottingham-uri-get-off-my-lawn-00.txt
>>>> Date: 2 August 2013 7:36:31 AM GMT+02:00 To: Mark Nottingham
>>>> <mnot@mnot.net>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A new version of I-D,
>>>> draft-nottingham-uri-get-off-my-lawn-00.txt has been
>>>> successfully submitted by Mark Nottingham and posted to the
>>>> IETF repository.
>>>>
>>>> Filename:	 draft-nottingham-uri-get-off-my-lawn Revision:	 00
>>>> Title:		 Standardising Structure in URIs Creation date:
>>>> 2013-08-02 Group:		 Individual Submission Number of pages: 7
>>>> URL:
>>>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-nottingham-uri-get-off-my-lawn-00.txt
>>>>
>>>>
Status: 
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-nottingham-uri-get-off-my-lawn
>>>> Htmlized:
>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-uri-get-off-my-lawn-00
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
Abstract:
>>>> It is sometimes attractive to specify a particular structure
>>>> for URIs (or parts thereof) to add support for a new feature,
>>>> application or facility.  This memo provides guidelines for
>>>> such situations in standards documents.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> The IETF Secretariat
>>>>
>>>
>>> -- Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
> -- Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
>
>
>
>
>
>

Received on Saturday, 3 August 2013 16:20:05 UTC