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

RE: Review of IETF netann Draft

From: Eric Burger <eburger@snowshore.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 17:24:23 -0500
Message-ID: <4A3384433CE2AB46A63468CB207E209D8428DA@zoe.office.snowshore.com>
To: "Martin Duerst" <duerst@w3.org>
Cc: <uri@w3.org>

Martin -

Thanks for the review.  I've got some questions in-line.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Duerst [mailto:duerst@w3.org]
> Sent: Friday, February 20, 2004 6:09 PM
> To: Eric Burger; uri@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Review of IETF netann Draft
> At 12:50 04/02/19 -0500, Eric Burger wrote:
> >The IETF Internet Draft Basic Network Media Services with SIP, 
> >http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-burger-sipping-netann-08.txt, 
> >amongst other things establishes a URI convention for 
> addressing named 
> >resources at an automaton (in this case, a media server).
> >
> >Input is solicited on the use and applicability of a URI 
> convention in the 
> >sip: and sips: URI scheme.
> Do you mean the convention to pick out some user names and use them
> to denote something else than users?
> In general, such conventions are considered a bad idea
> (the less of it the better), but I don't understand enough
> of SIP to assess this particular case.
> In addition to the arguments you give in section 6, proliferation
> should also be looked at. With postmaster@example.org, there is
> only one such address used up, and everybody in the email community
> knows this rather well.
> Your draft already has three or four, and there might be more
> in the future. People won't necessarily know what they all mean,
> and may not suspect that they stand for something special.
> One solution to this problem may be to change
>      sip:annc@example.net....
> to
>      sip:special-annc@example.net
> (choose whatever appropriate for the 'special' prefix).

In theory, any special prefix suffers the same problem.  "annc" takes away from the namespace the same as "special-annc".

In practice, it is in fact the way SIP is used that makes the namespace issue a non-problem.  The "reserved" users are typically at a device or proxy.  They are not exposed externally, as discussed in Section 6 of the draft.

> Another issue I think is the use of URIs within URIs.
> You use examples with quotes:
>        sip:annc@ms2.example.net; \
>            play="http://audio.example.net/allcircuitsbusy.g711"
> and examples without quotes:
>          sip:annc@ms.example.net; \
>              play=file://fs.example.net/clips/my-intro.dvi; \
>              content-type=video/mpeg%3bencode%d3314M-25/625-50
> My general observation of practice in many different places is to
> 1) not use quotes or anything similar, and 2) to only escape
> what needs to be escaped (although more escaping is often
> done because implementations of escaping try not to be
> context-dependent).

That is an excellent suggestion which will go into the next draft.

> As an aside, the 'locale' production also has problems,
> because it limits languages to those that have two-letter
> codes (see RFC 3066).

Absolutely correct -- I'll fix this one, too, refering to RFC3066.

> Hope this helps,     Martin.

Thank you very much for your review of the draft!
Received on Monday, 23 February 2004 17:24:52 UTC

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