Subject: Re: [lemonade] Proposal to include draft-cridland-urlfetch-binary-00.txt into Lemonade Profile Bis

From: Ken Murchison <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 13:05:59 -0500

Alexey Melnikov wrote:

> In my capacity of an individual contributor:
> Based on some discussions during the last Lemonade interop, I would like 
> to suggest that this document should be included into the Lemonade 
> Profile Bis. I've reviewed the document and I believe it is ready for 
> immediate Working Group Last Call.

A couple of last call comments:

- RFC 3516 restricts FETCH BINARY to 'section-part' (numeric-only 
parts), shouldn't URLFETCH BINARY do the same?  Currently RFC 5092 
allows all of 'section-spec'.

- As stated by someone (Phil?) the last IETF meeting, I think an example 
should be included, probably containing both BINARY and BODYPARTSTRUCTURE.

-- 
Kenneth Murchison
Systems Programmer
Project Cyrus Developer/Maintainer
Carnegie Mellon University

_______________________________________________
lemonade mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lemonade
Supplemental Web Site:
http://www.standardstrack.com/ietf/lemonade

---

From: Dave Cridland <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 11:56:52 +0000

> allows all of 'section-spec'.
My immediate reaction to this was that Ken's right - but on more  
thought I wondered. The intention with this restriction in RFC3516  
was to restrict the FETCH BINARY to leaf nodes, on the basis that a  
node can be known to be a leaf in advance by the client.

I'm not sure that this is the case, here - in particular, I have a  
gut feeling that URLs should be - or can be - treated largely as an  
opaque string by the resolver. So if a client asks for the BINARY or  
- most especially - BODYPARTSTRUCTURE of a non-neaf node, that seems  
reasonable. Moreover, the client using the URLAUTH URL cannot simply  
choose to use "1" instead of "TEXT", yet a URL referring to TEXT is  
legal to generate.

So thinking about this in the cold light of day, I think that  
section-spec is probably right.

> - As stated by someone (Phil?) the last IETF meeting, I think an  
> example should be included, probably containing both BINARY and  
> BODYPARTSTRUCTURE.

Indeed.

Dave.
-- 
Dave Cridland - mailto:[email-masked] - xmpp:[email-masked]
  - acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/
  - http://dave.cridland.net/
Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade