Just to be clear: I think the level of specification in this document is appropriate and a "full" specification would be intractable. But it would be useful to be just a bit more explicit about the things that you should figure out before implementing (about what other implementations do on the same platform). Larry -- http://larry.masinter.net > -----Original Message----- > From: ietf [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Larry Masinter > Sent: Tuesday, December 6, 2016 6:03 PM > To: Matthew Kerwin <matthew.kerwin@xxxxxxxxxx>; Barry Leiba > <barryleiba@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; draft-ietf-appsawg-file- > scheme.all@xxxxxxxx; secdir@xxxxxxxx > Cc: art@xxxxxxxx; IETF discussion list <ietf@xxxxxxxx>; > paul.hoffman@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: SecDir review of draft-ietf-appsawg-file-scheme-14 > > > It’s a tiny thing, but where the abstract says “replacing the > definition in RFC 1738,” one may be led to think (I was) that 1738 has > a more robust definition than it does. D’you mind changing that to > something like this: ‘This document provides a full specification of > the "file" Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) scheme, replacing the > very brief definition in Section 3.10 of RFC 1738.’ > > s/full/more complete/ > > A “full” specification of file: URIs might include a set of platform and > file-system specific implementation advice about how to handle file > naming, variations in Unicode normalization, case sensitivity, and so > forth. >