[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Ecrit] [Fwd: Re: [Uri-review] IETF ECRIT Working Group: LoST URI Scheme --- Review Needed]
FYI
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Uri-review] IETF ECRIT Working Group: LoST URI Scheme ---
Review Needed
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 15:29:40 -0500
From: Mark Baker <distobj at acm.org>
To: Hannes Tschofenig <Hannes.Tschofenig at gmx.net>
CC: uri-review at ietf.org, "Marc Linsner" <mlinsner at cisco.com>
References: <45C21133.5090302 at gmx.net>
I think section 4 should be expanded to follow the guidelines in RFC
4395 (BCP 115); there's a lot of missing information that we need to
properly review it.
Also, as a comment on the protocol, I find it unfortunate that LoST is
using HTTP as a transport protocol when it appears, after a cursory
read through the draft, that HTTP could be used perfectly well as an
application protocol. If it were, the implications to the URI scheme
would be different of course; you probably wouldn't need a new one,
AFAICT.
If you are going to continue to use HTTP for transport, I think you
should defend that choice with reference to RFC 3205 (BCP 56).
Mark.
On 2/1/07, Hannes Tschofenig <Hannes.Tschofenig at gmx.net> wrote:
Hi all
in the IETF ECRIT working group we have done work on a protocol called
LoST. The description can be found in:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ecrit-lost-03.txt
In Section 4 we define the LoST URI scheme.
The IANA considerations can be found in Section 16.5.
We would like to solicit feedback since we are getting close to finish
the document.
Ciao
Hannes & Marc
_______________________________________________
Uri-review mailing list
Uri-review at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review
--
Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca
Coactus; Web-inspired integration strategies http://www.coactus.com
_______________________________________________
Ecrit mailing list
Ecrit at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit