- From: Dale R. Worley <worley@ariadne.com>
- Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2025 11:08:48 -0500
- To: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
- Cc: kent+ietf@watsen.net, mjethanandani@gmail.com, ietfa@btconnect.com, art@ietf.org, uri@w3.org, uri-review@ietf.org, mt@lowentropy.net
Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> writes:
> I guess specifying a minimum list of URI schemes is OK, but having a
> maximum, i.e. limiting the allowed schemes, is likely not a good idea
> because new ones come along and occasionally are useful.
Let me support this vigorously.
The *Abstract* of draft-ietf-netconf-http-client-server says
The 'ietf-uri' module defines a YANG 'grouping' for the URI described in
Section 3 of RFC 3986.
So the Yang module MUST support all of the URI formats of section 3 of
RFC 3986.
If you want to limit the representable universe to "URI schemes that we
think will be useful to applications that use Yang", you need to make
that restriction explicit in the definition of what you are trying to
do.
Dale
Received on Monday, 8 December 2025 11:00:19 UTC