idnits 2.17.1 draft-hoffman-file-uri-01.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** It looks like you're using RFC 3978 boilerplate. You should update this to the boilerplate described in the IETF Trust License Policy document (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info), which is required now. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3667, Section 5.1 on line 14. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3978, Section 5.5 on line 222. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 1 on line 199. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 2 on line 206. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 3 on line 212. ** Found boilerplate matching RFC 3978, Section 5.4, paragraph 1 (on line 228), which is fine, but *also* found old RFC 2026, Section 10.4C, paragraph 1 text on line 36. ** The document seems to lack an RFC 3978 Section 5.1 IPR Disclosure Acknowledgement -- however, there's a paragraph with a matching beginning. Boilerplate error? ** This document has an original RFC 3978 Section 5.4 Copyright Line, instead of the newer IETF Trust Copyright according to RFC 4748. ** This document has an original RFC 3978 Section 5.5 Disclaimer, instead of the newer disclaimer which includes the IETF Trust according to RFC 4748. ** The document uses RFC 3667 boilerplate or RFC 3978-like boilerplate instead of verbatim RFC 3978 boilerplate. After 6 May 2005, submission of drafts without verbatim RFC 3978 boilerplate is not accepted. The following non-3978 patterns matched text found in the document. That text should be removed or replaced: By submitting this Internet-Draft, I certify that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which I am aware have been disclosed, or will be disclosed, and any of which I become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with RFC 3668. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == No 'Intended status' indicated for this document; assuming Proposed Standard Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document seems to lack an IANA Considerations section. (See Section 2.2 of https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist for how to handle the case when there are no actions for IANA.) Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the RFC 3978 Section 5.4 Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. If you have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore this comment. If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer. (See the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- The document date (September 18, 2004) is 7160 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 1738 (Obsoleted by RFC 4248, RFC 4266) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 2396 (Obsoleted by RFC 3986) -- No information found for draft-fielding-uri-rfc2396bis-nn - is the name correct? Summary: 7 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 10 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group P. Hoffman 3 Internet-Draft VPN Consortium 4 Expires: March 19, 2005 September 18, 2004 6 The file URI Scheme 7 draft-hoffman-file-uri-01.txt 9 Status of this Memo 11 By submitting this Internet-Draft, I certify that any applicable 12 patent or other IPR claims of which I am aware have been disclosed, 13 and any of which I become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with 14 RFC 3668. 16 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 17 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 18 other groups may also distribute working documents as 19 Internet-Drafts. 21 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 22 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 23 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 24 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 26 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 27 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. 29 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 30 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 32 This Internet-Draft will expire on March 19, 2005. 34 Copyright Notice 36 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved. 38 Abstract 40 This document specifies the file Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) 41 scheme that was originally specified in RFC 1738. The purpose of 42 this document is to allow RFC 1738 to be moved to historic while 43 keeping the information about the scheme on standards track. 45 1. Introduction 47 URIs are were previously defined in RFC 2396 [RFC2396], which was 48 updated by draft-fielding-uri-rfc2396bis [2396bis]. Those documents 49 also specify how to define schemes for URIs. 51 The first definition for many URI schemes appeared in RFC 1738 52 [RFC1738]. Because that document has been moved to Historic status, 53 this document copies the file URI scheme from it to allow that 54 material to remain on standards track. 56 2. Scheme Definition 58 The file URL scheme is used to designate files accessible on a 59 particular host computer. This scheme, unlike most other URL 60 schemes, does not designate a resource that is universally accessible 61 over the Internet. 63 The file URL scheme has historically had little or no 64 interoperability between platforms. Further, implementers on a 65 single platform have often disagreed on the syntaxt to use for a 66 particular filesystem. This docoument does not try to resolve those 67 problems, only to show what has been commonly seen in use on the 68 Internet. 70 A file URL takes the form: 72 file:/// 74 where is the fully qualified domain name of the system on 75 which the is accessible, and is a hierarchical 76 directory path of the form //.../. 78 As a special case, can be the string "localhost" or the empty 79 string; this is interpreted as "the machine from which the URL is 80 being interpreted". However, this part of the syntax has been 81 ignored on many systems. That is, for some systems, the following 82 are considered equal, while on others they are not: 84 file://localhost/path/to/file.txt 85 file:///path/to/file.txt 87 Some systems allow URLs to point to directories. In this case, there 88 is usually (but not always) a terminating "/" character, such as in: 90 file://usr/local/bin/ 92 On systems running some versions of Microsoft Windows, the local 93 drive specification is sometimes preceded by a "/" character. Thus, 94 for a file called "example.ini" in the "windows" directory on the 95 "c:" drive, the URL might be: 97 file:///c:/windows/example.ini 98 For Windows shares, there is an additional "/" prepended to the name. 99 Thus, the file "example.doc" on the shared directory "department" 100 would have the URL: 102 file:////department/example.doc 104 The file URL scheme is unusual in that it does not specify an 105 Internet protocol or access method for such files; as such, its 106 utility in network protocols between hosts is limited. 108 3. Implementation Notes 110 3.1 Hierarchical Structure 112 Most implementations of the file URI scheme do a reasonable job of 113 mapping the hierarchical part of a directory structure into the "/" 114 delimited hierarchy of the URI syntax, independent of what the native 115 platform delimiter is. 117 For example, on Windows platforms, it is typical that the file system 118 presents backslash "\" as the file delimeter for file names, yet the 119 URI's forward slash "/" can be used in file: URIs. Similarly, on 120 (some) Macintosh OS versions, at least in some contexts, the colon 121 (":") is used as the delimiter in the native presentation of file 122 path names. Unix systems natively use the same forward slash "/" 123 delimiter for hierarchy, so there is a closer mapping between file 124 paths and native path names. 126 3.2 Drives, drive letters, mount points, file system root 128 There is considerable difference, in practice, for handling of the 129 syntax for the "top" of the hierarchy. The file URI syntax provides 130 on simple place for designating the root of the file hierachy, and 131 implementations have diverged, even on the same platform, sometimes 132 even within a single application. 134 For example, DOS- and Windows-based systems support the notion of a 135 "drive letter", a single character which represents a (virtual) 136 drive, mount point, or device. Native representations of file paths 137 start with the drive letter, a colon, and then the path; e.g., 138 "c:\tmp\test.txt". 140 Drive letters are mapped into the top of a file URI in various ways, 141 depending on the implementation; some applications substitute 142 vertical bar ("|") for the colon after the drive letter, yielding 143 "file:///c|/tmp/test.txt". In some cases, the colon is left 144 unchanged, as in "file:///c:/tmp/test.txt". In other cases, the 145 colon is simply omitted, as in "file:///c/tmp/test.txt". 147 3.3 Use of hostname and host name checking 149 The file URI specification calls for using the actual host name as 150 the name authority and allowing it to be omitted. This practice is 151 rarely followed, and frequently is not checked. Some applications 152 generate URIs with no authority component at all, such as "file:/ 153 this/is/the/path". 155 3.4 Character sets and encodings 157 Local file systems sometimes use many different encodings for 158 representing file names. For interoperability sake, it would be 159 preferable for file: URI libraries to translate the native character 160 encoding for file names to and from Unicode. 162 4. Security Considerations 164 There are many security considerations for URI schemes discussed in 165 draft-fielding-uri-rfc2396bis [2396bis]. 167 5 Informative References 169 [RFC1738] Berners-Lee, T., Masinter, L. and M. McCahill, "Uniform 170 Resource Locators (URL)", RFC 1738, December 1994. 172 [RFC2396] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R. and L. Masinter, "Uniform 173 Resource Identifiers (URI): Generic Syntax", RFC 2396, 174 August 1998. 176 [2396bis] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R. and L. Masinter, "Uniform 177 Resource Identifiers (URI): Generic Syntax", work in 178 progress, draft-fielding-uri-rfc2396bis-nn.txt. 180 Author's Address 182 Paul Hoffman 183 VPN Consortium 184 127 Segre Place 185 Santa Cruz, CA 95060 186 US 188 EMail: paul.hoffman@vpnc.org 190 Intellectual Property Statement 192 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any 193 Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to 194 pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in 195 this document or the extent to which any license under such rights 196 might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has 197 made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information 198 on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be 199 found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. 201 Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any 202 assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an 203 attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of 204 such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this 205 specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at 206 http://www.ietf.org/ipr. 208 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any 209 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary 210 rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement 211 this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at 212 ietf-ipr@ietf.org. 214 Disclaimer of Validity 216 This document and the information contained herein are provided on an 217 "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS 218 OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET 219 ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, 220 INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE 221 INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED 222 WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 224 Copyright Statement 226 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). This document is subject 227 to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and 228 except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. 230 Acknowledgment 232 Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the 233 Internet Society.