W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > November 2006

Re: snews 4395-review

From: Charles Lindsey <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 15:24:20 -0000
To: URI <uri@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.ti2c2us36hl8nm@clerew.man.ac.uk>

On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 11:58:08 -0000, Frank Ellermann  
<nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> here's a copy of the snews-registration template posted in
> I-D.ellermann-news-nntp-uri-02.  Please tell me if you see
> any errors or issues:

This seems like the start of the debate on  
draft-ellermann-news-nntp-uri-02.txt. I would remind you that this all  
started with two rival drafts
         draft-ellermann-news-nntp-uri-00
         draft-lindsey-news-nntp-uri-00
and diffeences between those two approaches still remain. However, I will  
be commenting on draft-ellermann-news-nntp-uri-02.txt later in a separate  
thread, so let us just stick to the IANA Considerations in this thread for  
now,
>
> ~~~ cut ~~~
>    This section contains the [RFC4395] template for the registration of
>    the historical "snews" scheme specified in [I-D.gilman-news-url].
>
>    URI scheme name:   snews

I looked in IANA, and the 'snews' scheme is currently not registered at  
all AFAICS. So is it actually necessary to register it, even as  
historical, at this stage?

I agree that historical + deprecated is the correct claddification if it  
is to be registered, since that is how RFC 4642 leaves it, and  
I-D.gilman-news-url-02 foresaw that happening.

But if it is to be registered, then I question whether the template needs  
to be so long and detailed. The less said, the better (OTOH, for a  
historical scheme, I would expect a reference to gilman's original draft  
somewhere). But there is no need for the template to explain how to use  
it, or to suggest that it would necessarily include any fresh news  
features from the present draft.

However, on looking at the rest of that IANA Considerations section, I  
think you need to provide full templates for the news and nntp schemes,  
since the present registrations refer to RFC 1738, and that document  
contains no templates.

And I was quite mystified by:

8.2.  nntp.uri.arpa NAPTR

    This section contains the [RFC3405] template for the registration of
    the "nntp" URI scheme with the Dynamic Delegation Discovery System.

    Key:               nntp

    Authority:         RFCXXXX

    Record:
      nntp IN NAPTR 0 0 "" "" "!^nntp://([^/?#]*@)?([^:/?#]*).*$!\\2!i" .



I had never heard of the Dynamic Delegation Discovery System, and it took  
me a couple of hours to figure out what it was all about. It seems that,  
although administered by IANA, all mention of it is lacking from the IANA  
Web Site (so it is impossible to discover which *.uri.arpa domains  
actually exist).

So further explanation is needed, at the very least a mention of RFC 3404.  
What format has been used in other RFCs that create *.uri.arpa domains?

And why did you not create one for news.uri.arpa as well? Because its  
server might be empty? And how are nntp server admins supposed to take  
advantage of this facility, and for what purposes. And to what extent is  
this faciltiy currently used or other schemes (a little poking around the  
DNS failed to locate any NAPTR or SRV records anywhere.

-- 
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131                       
   Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk      Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9      Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5
Received on Wednesday, 15 November 2006 15:25:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:10 UTC