Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-uri-get-off-my-lawn-00.txt

Hi Mark!

Regarding
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-uri-get-off-my-lawn-00
Nice work.  A few substantive comments:

1. In section 2.3 and elsewhere, what is meant by an "application"?  And 
what is meant by an "extension"?  I think this needs to be clarified.

2. Somewhere the document should probably say explicitly that: (a) URI 
owners may standardise the structure of their own URIs; but (b) 
publishing that structure may make the structure hard to change without 
breaking clients that have started depending on the old structure.

3. I think it would be good to address the question: Given that the URI 
owner controls the structure of his/her URIs, what is wrong with the URI 
owner choosing to adopt a structure that is specified by someone else in 
a specification?

And some editorial comments:

4. It would be good to use the term "squatting" somewhere -- maybe in 
the title? -- since that is what this is commonly called.  DanC's early 
post about this problem:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2000Sep/0162.html

5. Regarding:
[[
  Client Assumptions - When conventions are standardised, some
       clients will inevitably assume that the standards are in use when
       they are seen.
]]
Clarify: To what does "they" refer?

6. The draft mentions the HTTP and HTTPS schemes (using UPPER case 
letters), but as RFC3896 states:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986#section-3.1
[[
Although schemes are case-
    insensitive, the canonical form is lowercase and documents that
    specify schemes must do so with lowercase letters.
]]

7. Change:
[[
all other specifications MUST NOT
constrain, define structure or semantics for them.
]]
to:
[[
all other specifications MUST NOT
constrain or define structure or semantics for any path component.
]]

8. Misc:
s/artefacts/artifacts/g
s/be used preclude/be used precludes/
s/party; its owner/party: its owner/

Thanks,
David


On 08/02/2013 01:38 AM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> FYI; this is an attempt to address a problem that's becoming more common in IETF specs as well as those elsewhere.
>
> Comments / suggestions welcome.
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
>> From: internet-drafts@ietf.org
>> Subject: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-uri-get-off-my-lawn-00.txt
>> Date: 2 August 2013 7:36:31 AM GMT+02:00
>> To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
>>
>>
>> A new version of I-D, draft-nottingham-uri-get-off-my-lawn-00.txt
>> has been successfully submitted by Mark Nottingham and posted to the
>> IETF repository.
>>
>> Filename:	 draft-nottingham-uri-get-off-my-lawn
>> Revision:	 00
>> Title:		 Standardising Structure in URIs
>> Creation date:	 2013-08-02
>> Group:		 Individual Submission
>> Number of pages: 7
>> URL:             http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-nottingham-uri-get-off-my-lawn-00.txt
>> Status:          http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-nottingham-uri-get-off-my-lawn
>> Htmlized:        http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-uri-get-off-my-lawn-00
>>
>>
>> Abstract:
>>    It is sometimes attractive to specify a particular structure for URIs
>>    (or parts thereof) to add support for a new feature, application or
>>    facility.  This memo provides guidelines for such situations in
>>    standards documents.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
>> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
>>
>> The IETF Secretariat
>>
>
> --
> Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Received on Friday, 2 August 2013 19:35:38 UTC