> On 08/29/2022 11:25 PM EDT Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Mon, Aug 29, 2022 at 12:28 PM Salz, Rich <rsalz= > 40akamai.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > http is a uri > > > http is a label > > > http is a domain name > > > http is a uri scheme name > > > > 'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it > > means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less. ' 'The > > question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many > > different things. ' > > > > http is not a URI as it does not meet the syntax defined in RFC 2396. > > Is http a label? It depends on the context, do you mean domain label? If > > so, can you replace the http label with another label, such as localhost, > > and have the same semantics? > > Is http a domain name? It depends on the context in which it is being > > evaluated. Is foo a domain name? > > http is a URI scheme name > > > > I wasn't going to post here, but apparently there are some long-time > > IETFers that don't know some things. > > > > > Its all the same characters in the same position of the string. > > > > And know I think we are getting to the crux of the point that Tim is > > trying to make. One possible reason is to bolster his legal action, if he > > is still pursuing it. And this claim is wrong. > > http://http.example.com/cgi-bin/headers?http > > The first use is a scheme, the second is a label within a fully-qualified > > domain name, and I'm not sure what the third use would be called. > > > > Tim has been trying for years to get his "drop" concept registered as a a > > URI scheme even though it doesn't use ":" as the separator. See the thread > > at [1] for some recent activity. He tried this at the IETF in 2020, which > > he appealed to the IESG [2][3] and then the IAB [4]. I am pretty sure that > > there was legal action started, but I don't recall where I heard that and > > do not have a link. > > > > He has an individual draft [5]. I was told he asked the ISE to publish > > it, but again I don't recall where I heard that and do not have a link. > > > > Tim believes that "drop#foobar" should be defined as a standard URI, and > > refuses to accept that it has to be "drop:foobar" > > > > drop#foobar can't work as a URI because the # character is reserved for use > as a fragment identifier. > > The scheme part of the URI is designated by a colon by definition. It is > impossible for anyone to register 'drop#' as a scheme identifier because > the registry only defines labels. > > The scheme prefix is one of the very few parts of a URI that is fixed by > the specification for all URIs, the allowable character set being the > other. This proposal somehow manages to break both. If I wanted to establish the novelty of a patentable idea, bringing it to the IETF for an expert review would be top on my list.
