Last Call Review of draft-nottingham-rfc7320bis-02
review-nottingham-rfc7320bis-02-opsdir-lc-wu-2019-11-28-00
Request | Review of | draft-nottingham-rfc7320bis |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 03) | |
Type | IETF Last Call Review | |
Team | Ops Directorate (opsdir) | |
Deadline | 2019-12-16 | |
Requested | 2019-11-18 | |
Authors | Mark Nottingham | |
I-D last updated | 2020-06-30 (Latest revision 2020-01-05) | |
Completed reviews |
Opsdir IETF Last Call review of -02
by Qin Wu
(diff)
Genart IETF Last Call review of -02 by Robert Sparks (diff) Secdir IETF Last Call review of -02 by Donald E. Eastlake 3rd (diff) Tsvart IETF Last Call review of -02 by Dr. Joseph D. Touch (diff) |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Qin Wu |
State | Completed | |
Request | IETF Last Call review on draft-nottingham-rfc7320bis by Ops Directorate Assigned | |
Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ops-dir/N47HHkojbwsZyWvYcljqGyPCPKU | |
Reviewed revision | 02 (document currently at 03) | |
Result | Ready | |
Completed | 2019-11-28 |
review-nottingham-rfc7320bis-02-opsdir-lc-wu-2019-11-28-00
This document provides a good guidance on the specification of URI substructure in standards. One key value of this document is to remove constraints upon the structure of URIs and provide best current practice on how to specify structure and semantics within URIs. I believe it is ready for publication. Major issue: Not found Minor issue: I am curious why this bis document is not published through WG process but through individual stream process. If this document is published through individual steam process with AD sponsored, should this document be classified as informational? Where was this document initially discussed to build IETF consensus? In which WG? Is removing constraints on the structure of URIs causing a lot of debate, e.g., the following constraints relaxation: “ Note that this does not apply to Applications defining a structure of URIs paths "under" a resource under control of the server. Because the prefix is under control of the party deploying the application, collisions and rigidity are avoided, and the risk of erroneous client assumptions is reduced. ” Try to look into the history of the relevant discussion.