The "file" URI Scheme
draft-ietf-appsawg-file-scheme-16

[Ballot comment]
- I support Stephen's DISCUSS

- Section 5: "Implementers MUST research" and "Care MUST be taken" both seem like requirements on people, not on implementations. Furthermore, "research" and "taking of care" are vague in terms of expected results. Can these be recast into concrete expectations of implementation behavior?

[Ballot comment]
I also support Stephen's Discuss (which is pretty much "we need to explicitly decide whether we can live with this", as I understand it).

[Ballot comment]
'not' missing?
s/It would be impossible for this
  specification to list all such significant characters and device
  names. /It would not be impossible for this
  specification to list all such significant characters and device
  names. /

[Ballot discuss]

Appendix C: this spec and the whatwg web page may or may not
be in conflict. I think this may be the first PS that we've
produced where that fact finally hits that fan - is that
right? If not, then I'll clear as we'll already have decided
there's nothing to be done about odd behaviour with
"competing" specifications for the same thing (that thing
being RFC3986). If this is the first time we've gotten to
this point, then I think the IESG ought explicitly decide
that we are going to live with what we all know is a pretty
crap situation where different implementers (web vs. non-web
basically) supporting various kinds of URL/URI are liable to
end up doing different and potentially non-interoperable
things. (There is no action required from the author. For the
IESG - we discussed this a couple of years back, but there
have been some personnel changes since and I forget if the
current set of ADs are or are not up to speed with and ok
with this.)

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Services Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-appsawg-file-scheme-14. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

The IANA Services Operator has a question about one of the registry actions requested in the IANA Considerations section of this document.

The IANA Services Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there is a single action which we must complete.

In the Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) Schemes registry located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/uri-schemes/

there is an existing registration for the URI scheme: file

The existing reference for this registration is [RFC 1738].

IANA Question --> Should the existing reference be replaced with [RFC-to-be], or should [RFC-to-be] be added to the existing reference?

NOTE: Because this is a permanent registration, we're asking the IESG-designated registry expert to confirm that this update is OK.

The IANA Services Operator understands that this is the only action required to be completed upon approval of this document.

Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed.

Thank you,

Amanda Baber
Lead IANA Services Specialist
PTI

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: "IETF-Announce"
CC: alexey.melnikov@isode.com, art@ietf.org, dcrocker@bbiw.net, draft-ietf-appsawg-file-scheme@ietf.org, appsawg-chairs@ietf.org
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (The file URI Scheme) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the ART Area General Applications
Working Group WG (appsawg) to consider the following document:
- 'The file URI Scheme'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2016-12-06. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This document specifies the "file" Uniform Resource Identifier (URI)
  scheme, replacing the definition in RFC 1738.

  It defines a common syntax which is intended to interoperate across
  the broad spectrum of existing usages.  At the same time it notes
  some other current practices around the use of file URIs.

Note to Readers (To be removed by the RFC Editor)

  This draft should be discussed on the IETF Applications Area Working
  Group discussion list .




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-appsawg-file-scheme/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-appsawg-file-scheme/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

My AD review:

1) In Section 4:

  When a file URI is produced, characters not allowed by the syntax in Section 2 SHOULD be percent-encoded as characters using UTF-8 encoding, as per [RFC3986], Section 2.5.

This text is confusing. Are you trying to say that first Unicode characters are encoded in UTF-8 and then that non-ASCII octets are percent encoded?

2) Section 6 doesn't include all IANA registration template fields specified in RFC 7595, Section 7.4.

Document Shepherd:  D. Crocker

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?  Why
is this the proper type of RFC?  Is this type of RFC indicated in the
title page header?

    Standards Track.  This document specifies a common format to be used on the Internet. It builds on related work that is already in use. The intended status is on the header.


(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary

    This document specifies the "file" Uniform Resource Identifier (URI)  scheme, replacing the definition in RFC 1738.  It defines a common syntax which is intended to interoperate across  the broad spectrum of existing usages.  It also  notes  some other current practices around the use of file URIs.


Working Group Summary

  Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For
  example, was there controversy about particular points or
  were there decisions where the consensus was particularly
  rough?

    The work was done in the Apps Area Working group and has received significant community comment, with multiple revisions resulting.  Support for the work appears solid.

[CHAIR and SHEPHERD NOTE: This document went through two WGLCs.  The first one yielded some input but the document shepherd review identified numerous issues that resulted in a flurry of other review traffic and document revisions.  A second WGLC was then done that yielded no feedback at all.  We suspect this is a result of wandered interest (since APPSAWG is closing) rather than any indication that the document is not sound or does not have consensus to proceed.]

Document Quality

  Document development had some coordination with the W3C community, which can be expected to use this work.

Personnel

  Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
  Director?

  Document Shepherd:  D. Crocker
Responsible AD: Alexey Melnikov
Process management:  M. Kucherawy


(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd.  If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
the IESG.

    I did an extensive review on the first Last Call's version, and this prompted substantial additional community discussion and input, as well as significant revisions to the specification.  There have been two revisions since then and, in my opinion, the current version is now focused and clear, and resolves the concerns that were raised. 

    The file: scheme is of obvious utility and this revised specification should be quite helpful.


(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

  I am now comfortable with the depth and breadth of reviews that have been done.


(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
took place.

  I am not aware of any 'coordinating' reviews that are needed at this point.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the
IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable
with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really
is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and
has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
concerns here.

  No specific concerns or issues.


(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.

  No special IPR concerns are present.


(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

  No related IPR statements have been filed.


(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others
being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? 

  The work was a short-term effort in the Apps Area WG.  Such efforts typically do not accrue very large numbers of participants.  That said, this document had input that was varied in kind and sources.  I believe resulting support is solid.


(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate
email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a
separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

  I am not aware of any concerns about document process or content.


(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

  No nits.


(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

  No special review requirements.


(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

  Yes.


(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative
references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

  No.


(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in
the Last Call procedure.

  No.


(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not
listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the
part of the document where the relationship of this document to the
other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document,
explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

  No.
'

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes
are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

  IANA section looks good to me.


(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find
useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

  None.


(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

I reviewed the contained ABNF carefully.

d/

Document Shepherd:  D. Crocker

Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?  Why
is this the proper type of RFC?  Is this type of RFC indicated in the
title page header?

  Standards Track.  This document specifies a common format to be used on the Internet. It builds on related work that is already in use. The intended status is on the header.


(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary

  This document specifies the "file" Uniform Resource Identifier (URI)
  scheme, replacing the definition in RFC 1738.  It defines a common syntax which is intended to interoperate across
  the broad spectrum of existing usages.  It also  notes
  some other current practices around the use of file URIs.


Working Group Summary

  Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For
  example, was there controversy about particular points or
  were there decisions where the consensus was particularly
  rough?

  The work was done in the Apps Area Working group and has received significant community comment, with multiple revisions resulting.  Support for the current version appears solid.

[CHAIR NOTE: This document went through two WGLCs.  The first one yielded some input but the document shepherd review identified numerous issues that resulted in a flurry of other review traffic and document revisions.  A second WGLC was then done that yielded no feedback at all.  We suspect this is a result of wandered interest (since APPSAWG is closing) rather than any indication that the document is not sound or does not have consensus to proceed.]

Document Quality

  Document development had some coordination with the W3C community, which can be expected to use this work.

Personnel

  Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
  Director?

  Document Shepherd:  D. Crocker
Responsible AD: Alexey Melnikov
Process management:  M. Kucherawy


(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd.  If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
the IESG.

  I did an extensive review on a Last Call version that prompted substantial additional community discussion and input, as well as significant revisions to the specification.  In my opinion, the current version is now focused and clear.  The file: scheme is of obvious utility and this revised specification should be quite helpful.


(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

  I am now comfortable with the depth and breadth of reviews that have been done.


(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
took place.

  I am not aware of any 'coordinating' reviews that are needed at this point.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the
IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable
with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really
is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and
has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
concerns here.

  No specific concerns or issues.


(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.

  No special IPR concerns are present.


(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

  No related IPR statements have been filed.


(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others
being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? 

  The work was a short-term effort in the Apps Area WG.  Such efforts typically do not accrue very large numbers of participants.  That said, this document had input that was varied in kind and sources.  I believe resulting support is solid.


(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate
email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a
separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

  I am not aware of any concerns about document process or content.


(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

  No nits.


(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

  No special review requirements.


(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

  Yes.


(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative
references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

  No.


(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in
the Last Call procedure.

  No.


(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not
listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the
part of the document where the relationship of this document to the
other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document,
explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

  No.
'

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes
are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

  IANA section looks good to me.


(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find
useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

  None.


(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

I reviewed the contained ABNF carefully.

d/