- From: Eric Burger <eburger@snowshore.com>
- Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 17:24:23 -0500
- 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