Subject: Re: [urn] encoding, component order, and related issues

From: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 20:52:06 -0600

My apologies for the delayed replies to list discussion on version -12. 
I shall endeavor to catch up. For now just one comment, focusing on 
component order...

On 7/28/15 12:01 AM, Keith Moore wrote:

> Since I believe that protocol designs and system should try to avoid
> obscure edge cases, I would prefer that the syntax permit a direct
> copying of URN q-component to URL query (and vice versa if this is ever
> applicable).

All other things being equal, I think that is a laudable goal.

> And that's why I was looking for ways to change the ABNF
> to permit this, including changing the order of q- and r-components.   I
> think that will produce fewer implementation bugs, less obscure and odd
> behavior, and less user frustration.

More laudable goals.

> But I also realize that this is at least the third time I've tried to
> fix this, and that the glitches that this causes will probably be
> infrequent.   I also strongly suspect that this will come up again in
> IETF-wide Last Call because I expect the web types will want to go over
> this with a fine-toothed comb.   So while I still don't understand why
> you so strongly insist that r-component has to follow q-component,

My sense is that John feels this was a closed issue and that the WG had 
reached agreement on q-then-r, so why revisit it?

For myself, I don't have strong feelings about q-then-r vs. r-then-q. I 
find mostly compelling your argument in favor of r-then-q in appealing 
to the ability to copy from URN to URL without translation (since 
translation inevitably introduces the possibility of getting it wrong). 
And as far as I can see right now there is no particularly strong reason 
to prefer q-then-r with regard to ease of implementation, improved 
security, minimizing user confusion, etc. So I am open to changing the 
order if that's the direction the WG prefers.

> I
> feel like other issues are more substantive and I've done due diligence
> trying to point it out.   So maybe the thing to do is see if it gets
> raised again in IETF-wide Last Call, where I expect the whole
> interaction between URN components and URL components will get a lot of
> attention.

I think it would be good to minimize attention in IETF Last Call by 
addressing issues sooner rather than later. :-)

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://andyet.com/

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 00:46:50 -0400

--On Thursday, August 13, 2015 20:52 -0600 Peter Saint-Andre -
&yet <[email-masked]> wrote:

>> But I also realize that this is at least the third time I've
>> tried to fix this, and that the glitches that this causes
>> will probably be infrequent.   I also strongly suspect that
>> this will come up again in IETF-wide Last Call because I
>> expect the web types will want to go over this with a
>> fine-toothed comb.   So while I still don't understand why
> My sense is that John feels this was a closed issue and that
> the WG had reached agreement on q-then-r, so why revisit it?

Yes.  I'm happy to reconstruct and explain again the reasons for
preferring q-then-r, including why I think the "copying"
argument is mostly bogus in practice,  but I'm disinclined to
spend everyone's time doing so unless either the co-chairs say
"actually there was no conclusion earlier" or someone other than
Keith feels strongly about the other order and says so.

   john

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 20:23:44 -0400

I never was convinced of a consensus on this issue (though it's hard to tell when there are so few active participants and people sometimes take a long time to reply).  But I'm also no longer convinced that this is a huge problem.

Sent from my iPhone

> On Aug 14, 2015, at 12:46 AM, John C Klensin <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> 
>