Hi Julian, thanks for the extremely quick response: >Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo) wrote: >> ... >>> 1) URI schemes >>> >>> From the draft, it's totally unclear what the URI schemes >are needed >>> for. For instance, the registrations do not mention what the URIs >>> actually identity, and how to resolve them. >> >> Well. Initially, we wanted to use HTTP URI scheme but we were told >> that we shouldn't do that. Based on the advice we got we >created a new >> URI scheme. >> ... > >I think that's bad advice. > >Either this decision should be reversed, or the specification >needs to be updated so that it actually *defines* the URI scheme. > Like with many other areas, you ask 5 persons and get 7 opinions. How should a working group soliciting advice make an informed decisions? >> ... >>> 2) HTTP examples >>> >>> As far as I can tell, the examples in Section 11.1 are not really >>> HTTP, or I'm missing explanations that would be needed to >understand >>> this. >>> >>> For instance, they use heldref URIs in the Request-Line of the >>> request. >>> Also, there's an example where a response uses the HTTP version >>> number "HTTP/1.x". >> >> >> How would the examples have to look like so that they are correct? > >As far as I can tell, > > GET heldrefs://lis.example.com:49152/location HTTP/1.1 > Accept:application/held+xml, > application/xml;q=0.8, > text/xml;q=0.7 > Accept-Charset: UTF-8,* > >needs to be: > > GET /location HTTP/1.1 > Host: lis.example.com:49152 > Accept:application/held+xml, > application/xml;q=0.8, > text/xml;q=0.7 > Accept-Charset: UTF-8,* > >...which of course makes it obvious that the new URI scheme is >totally pointless. We just recently updated our examples from the lower one to the upper one. Martin Thomson might provide you more background on this issue since he also told me to update other drafts ... Martin, can you provide a bit of background here? > >>> 3) Usage of HTTP >>> >>> The protocol tunnels over HTTP instead of using HTTP, probably >>> because it tries to be transport-agnostic. This makes only sense if >>> there are other transports. Are there? >> >> The idea was to make it protocol agnostic and at least one other >> transport has been published. Currently, the group tries to finish >> some other work before these issues may be brought up again. >> >>> Even if the answer to that is "yes", HTTP semantics should >be obeyed; >>> if the response to a request is an error message, it shouldn't be >>> returned with status code 200. There's no problem using a 4xx class >>> status code and returning a custom body (as we do in WebDAV). >> >> We copied this from other documents that went through the >IETF process. >> We got told that returning a 200 OK is fine when the problem that >> caused the error message happens to be at a different layer. So far, >> that seemed to me like a pretty good answer and seems to be inline >> with the semantic of protocol layering. >> ... > >Is that discussion archived somewhere? Where did it happen? I have to search through the ECRIT and GEOPRIV mailing list -- 2 lists with a lot of mail. Ciao Hannes > >BR, Julian > _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf