W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > February 2004

Re: I-D ACTION:draft-black-snmp-uri-02.txt

From: Shigeru Aoki <shig@tfm.co.jp>
Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2004 03:02:30 +0900
Message-ID: <00cc01c3ecdb$63810a60$2a01a8c0@shig>
To: <uri@w3.org>

It is noted in the "draft-black-snmp-uri-02.txt" that
 "The encoding rules specified in [RFC 2396] and [RFC 2732] apply to SNMP
URIs, ....".

Is this draft valid as long as it refers to the RFC2396?
(It is assumed that the RFC2396bis will have different
 RFC number in the future, not overwrite the current RFC2396.)

Should the draft reflect the RFC2396bis syntax instead of RFC2396 otherwise?


***Shig***

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Stefan Eissing" <stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de>
To: <uri@w3.org>
Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2004 1:23 AM
Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-black-snmp-uri-02.txt


>
>
> Am 06.02.2004 um 17:00 schrieb Shigeru Aoki:
>
> >
> >> A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
> >> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-black-snmp-uri-02.txt
> >
> >
> > Although the syntax of snmp_URI allows text string context in the
> > authority
> > part of the URI, RFC2396bis doesn't allow text string context in there.
>
> Correct. RFC 2396 did allow it, but 2396bis does no longer. The proposed
> snmp URI scheme looks almost like a hierarchical uri, but as you noted
> it
> differs significantly.
>
> I'm in no way fluent on SNMP, but it would seem prudent to either go the
> "opaque way" and use another character than '/' for separating
> components,
> or go the "hierarchical" way and shift the engine/context parts into the
> path part of the uri.
>
> One simple way could be the usage of query parameter or always treat
> the first two path segments as engine/context identifier with a defined
> constant for default values.
>
> //Stefan
>
Received on Friday, 6 February 2004 12:34:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:07 UTC