Re: draft-nottingham-http-link-relation-07 progress

On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 9:11 PM, "Martin J. Dürst"
<duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp> wrote:
> I agree that RFC 3986 (and RFC 3987) are not of direct use for defining
> anything like a normalization of URIs (or IRIs). The main reason for this is
> that there are different contexts in which you may have different knowledge
> (e.g. of scheme specific default ports) and may prefer aggressive or
> cautionary normalization. The safe side of the normalization range is on
> different ends depending on what you are doing.
>
> As we are working on an update to RFC 3987, what I'm wondering is whether it
> may be possible to improve the text in RFC 3987 (which is mostly a copy of
> the one in RFC 3986, with some additions due to the bigger character
> repertoire) so that it becomes easier for an application such as OAuth to
> define what they need just with a few pointers (e.g. "from Section X of the
> IRI spec, use foo, baz, and frof normalizations but not bar") rather than
> defining everything ab initio.
>
> Would that help? Or does nobody care?
>

I think it would be very useful, partly because it would allow
descriptions of comparison techniques to say "The FOO comparison
starts with the application of the BAR normalization
then applies the following steps".  This simplifies the necessary
description of the comparison methods, and it seems likely to improve
the selection among comparison methods by protocol designers as
well.

Just my two cents,

Ted




> Regards,   Martin.
>
> On 2009/12/03 3:03, Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote:
>>
>> It's a good start but not enough. The text itself points out the various
>> problems with normalization but does not address all of them with normative
>> language. Normalization must be nothing but a long list of MUSTs and MUST
>> NOTs.
>>
>> When we first pointed developers to 3986 for OAuth normalization needs,
>> nothing worked...
>>
>> EHL
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Julian Reschke [mailto:julian.reschke@gmx.de]
>>> Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 8:43 AM
>>> To: Eran Hammer-Lahav
>>> Cc: Jan Algermissen; John Panzer; Apps Discuss
>>> Subject: Re: draft-nottingham-http-link-relation-07 progress
>>>
>>> Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately no. There is no standard way (I'm aware of) to
>>>> canonicalize a
>>>
>>> URI in a consistent way. This is why specs like OAuth have to spell out
>>> how to
>>> perform percent encoding and other transformations to ensure a consistent
>>> string.
>>>>
>>>> ...
>>>
>>> <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc3986.html#rfc.section.6.2.2.2>?
>>>
>>> BR, Julian
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Apps-Discuss mailing list
>> Apps-Discuss@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
>>
>
> --
> #-# Martin J. Dürst, Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
> #-# http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp   mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp
> _______________________________________________
> Apps-Discuss mailing list
> Apps-Discuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
>

Received on Wednesday, 16 December 2009 12:53:39 UTC