Subject: [Simple] XCAP Issue 4 Interim Summary: document to element separator

From: Jonathan Rosenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 02:14:02 -0400

This is the micro-issue that won't die.

I had proposed the single quote as another choice. However, there was 
concern that implementors would get this wrong, given the different 
types of single quotes. It was pointed out that the separator doesnt 
have to be a single character. So, "~~" was proposed (two tildes). This 
seemed fine, and there was consensus to use that as the separator.

Thanks,
Jonathan R.
-- 
Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D.                600 Lanidex Plaza
Chief Technology Officer                    Parsippany, NJ 07054-2711
dynamicsoft
[email-masked]                     FAX:   (973) 952-5050
http://www.jdrosen.net                      PHONE: (973) 952-5000
http://www.dynamicsoft.com

_______________________________________________
Simple mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple

---

From: Jari Urpalainen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 15:59:50 +0300

> seemed fine, and there was consensus to use that as the separator.

As Joel already noted that ~ is allowed in some ;) operating systems as
a valid directory this applies to double tildes (file/directory) too. Of
course the probability of having this sort of an error is rare it may
happen. If this is still introduced the situation should at least be
warned in the draft.

BR,
Jari

---

From: Jonathan Rosenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2004 06:52:20 -0400

> happen. If this is still introduced the situation should at least be

We need to keep in mind that XCAP is all about defining the structure of 
a URI and defining the resource it identifies. Thus, its not like you 
are going to see arbitrary URIs. We can simply mandate that no path in 
the directory have the name "~~". The concern was around the possibility 
of transparent proxies and other nasties that would not know about xcap, 
and would rewrite the "~" in a URI to the home directory of a user. This 
idea was that they wouldn't rewrite a "~~".

If we don't worry about that case (transparent proxies rewriting URIs), 
then we can even use the "~" safely, just by mandating that the XCAP 
server never allow "~" as a part of the path.

Honestly, I'd rather do that and just use the single tilde.

-Jonathan R.

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2004 09:49:29 -0400

To rephrase my concern slightly, I am not particularly concerned about 
transparent (or other) proxies in the communication path rewriting the ~ to 
be the users home directory.
I am concerned about the case where the HTTP processing logic in the 
target, before it hands to URI off to the XCAP logic, may replace the ~ 
with the users home directory.
I am not sure how likely that is.
It seems extremely unlikely that such logic would replace ~~ with anything.
Aesthetically, I prefer a single ~.  For safety, I am inclined towards the 
double.

Yours,
Joel

At 06:52 AM 6/17/2004 -0400, Jonathan Rosenberg wrote:
>We need to keep in mind that XCAP is all about defining the structure of a 
>URI and defining the resource it identifies. Thus, its not like you are 
>going to see arbitrary URIs. We can simply mandate that no path in the 
>directory have the name "~~". The concern was around the possibility of 
>transparent proxies and other nasties that would not know about xcap, and 
>would rewrite the "~" in a URI to the home directory of a user. This idea 
>was that they wouldn't rewrite a "~~".
>

---

From: Jonathan Rosenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 17:05:24 -0400

Alright, lets just do the ~~ and be done with this issue.

-Jonathan R.

Joel M. Halpern wrote:

> transparent (or other) proxies in the communication path rewriting the ~ 
> to be the users home directory.
> Aesthetically, I prefer a single ~.  For safety, I am inclined towards 
> the double.
> 
> Yours,
> Joel
> 
>> We need to keep in mind that XCAP is all about defining the structure 
>> of a URI and defining the resource it identifies. Thus, its not like 
>> you are going to see arbitrary URIs. We can simply mandate that no 
>> path in the directory have the name "~~". The concern was around the 
>> possibility of transparent proxies and other nasties that would not 
>> know about xcap, and would rewrite the "~" in a URI to the home 
>> directory of a user. This idea was that they wouldn't rewrite a "~~".
>>
>> If we don't worry about that case (transparent proxies rewriting 
>> URIs), then we can even use the "~" safely, just by mandating that the 
>> XCAP server never allow "~" as a part of the path.
>>