provisional URI scheme 'ln' registration

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
3 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

provisional URI scheme 'ln' registration

Rolf-Jürgen Moll
Please review and register this provisional URI scheme template:


URI scheme name
===============
ln


Status
======
provisional


URI scheme syntax
=================
ln:[//<protocol>:<server>[:<port>]/]<type>/<resource>


URI scheme semantics
====================
The scheme is used to identify resources provided by the LucaNet.Server.


<protocol>
----------
Allowed values are "http" and "https".


<server>
--------
DNS or IP address of the LucaNet.Server.


<port>
------
Port of the LucaNet.Server. If port is omitted, the value "80" will be
assumed for the protocol "http" and the value "443" for the protocol "https".


<type>
------

Type                             Description
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
imdb                             The URI identifies a resource in an IMDB module
                                 (IMDB: LucaNet In Memory Database).

imdb:<module_id>                 The URI identifies a resource in the IMDB module
                                 <module_id>.

imdb:<database_id>:<module_id>   The URI identifies a resource in the IMDB module
                                 <module_id> of the database <database_id>.

dt                               The URI identifies a data type resource.

icon                             The URI identifies an icon resource.

rf                               The URI identifies a row format resource.


Samples
-------
ln://http:192.168.0.1:81/imdb:x_adam:0/pEDskFm10tKkQOyQWbXS0g
ln://https:localhost/imdb:x_adam:0/pEDskFm10tKkQOyQWbXS0g

ln:imdb:x_adam:0/pEDskFm10tKkQOyQWbXS0g
ln:imdb:0/pEDskFm10tKkQOyQWbXS0g
ln:imdb:pEDskFm10tKkQOyQWbXS0g

ln:dt:12
ln:icon:8
ln:rf:1


Encoding considerations
=======================
Use URL encoding


Applications/protocols that use this URI scheme name
====================================================
LucaNet.Server


Interoperability considerations
===============================
If <protocol> and <server> are not specified, these information must be provided by the
context, e.g. the URI points to a resource on the current LucaNet.Server.

If <module_id> and/or <databse_Id> is not specified, these information must be provided
by the context, e.g. the URI points to a resource in the current IMDB module of the
current database of the current LucaNet.Server.


Security considerations
=======================
-


Contact
=======
Rolf-Juergen Moll
mailto:info(at)lucanet.com
http://www.lucanet.com


Author/Change controller
========================
Rolf-Juergen Moll
mailto:info(at)lucanet.com
http://www.lucanet.com


References
==========
http://www.lucanet.com

Mit freundlichen Grüßen

ROLF-JÜRGEN MOLL
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LucaNet AG
Alexanderplatz 1
10178 Berlin
Germany
Phone: +49 30 4699100
Fax: +49 30 46991029

www.lucanet.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Executive Board: Rolf-Jürgen Moll, Oliver Schmitz, Dominik Duchon
Chairman of the Supervisory Board: David Worthmann
Company headquarters: Berlin
Register court: Berlin, Amtsgericht Berlin, HRB 97214
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LucaNet – 15 years of expertise in financial consolidation, planning and controlling

Follow us on XING, Twitter, Google+, Facebook, YouTube and LinkedIn


_______________________________________________
Uri-review mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review

smime.p7s (5K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: provisional URI scheme 'ln' registration

Bjoern Hoehrmann
* Rolf-Jürgen Moll wrote:
>Please review and register this provisional URI scheme template:
>
>URI scheme name
>===============
>ln

Considering the seemingly proprietary nature of the scheme, I think a
longer name would be more appropriate, like `lucanet` for instance.

>Samples
>-------
>ln://http:192.168.0.1:81/imdb:x_adam:0/pEDskFm10tKkQOyQWbXS0g
>ln://https:localhost/imdb:x_adam:0/pEDskFm10tKkQOyQWbXS0g

This syntax is not possible under the constraints of RFC 3986, the two
strings do not match the `URI` grammar.

>Encoding considerations
>=======================
>Use URL encoding

It is obvious that you use URL encoding for URLs; instead, the section
should say something about, for example, using non-ASCII characters.
--
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:[hidden email] · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
D-10243 Berlin · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
 Available for hire in Berlin (early 2015)  · http://www.websitedev.de/ 

_______________________________________________
Uri-review mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: provisional URI scheme 'ln' registration

Graham Klyne-2
On 13/12/2014 12:44, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
> * Rolf-Jürgen Moll wrote:
>> Please review and register this provisional URI scheme template:
>>
>> URI scheme name
>> ===============
>> ln
>
> Considering the seemingly proprietary nature of the scheme, I think a
> longer name would be more appropriate, like `lucanet` for instance.

I was going to make similar comment.

Note from RFC4395:
[[
URI scheme names should be short, but also sufficiently descriptive
and distinguished to avoid problems.
]]
-- https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4395#section-2

In this case, I think "lucanet" would be better choice.

Also:
[[
   o  If no permanent, citable specification for the URI scheme
       definition is included, credible reasons for not providing it
       should be given.
]]
-- https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4395#section-3

I'm not seeing any usable specification - the "reference" appears to be a
corporate web page, not a specification.

And:
[[
    o  A valid Security Considerations section, as required by Section 6
       of [3].
]]
-- https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4395#section-3

A blank section doesn't constitute a "valid Security Considerations section".
Since the application concerned appears to be accounting, I'd expect security to
be a real concern here.  (Note: it's not expected that the security
considerations will solve any security concerns, just raise awareness of what
they may be so that developers don't walk blindly into security bear-traps.)

...

More generally, I'm not seeing any reason why a new URI scheme is used here:
why can't HTTP be used to retrieve resources from a Lucanet server?  Your
description looks rather like an attempt to tunnel HTTP URIs  through a new
scheme, which seems really at odds with the idea of using a URI.

...

And, as a procedural matter, your email asks "Please review and register this
provisional URI scheme" ... to register a scheme you need to send a request to
IANA as described in RFC4395

#g
--


>
>> Samples
>> -------
>> ln://http:192.168.0.1:81/imdb:x_adam:0/pEDskFm10tKkQOyQWbXS0g
>> ln://https:localhost/imdb:x_adam:0/pEDskFm10tKkQOyQWbXS0g
>
> This syntax is not possible under the constraints of RFC 3986, the two
> strings do not match the `URI` grammar.
>
>> Encoding considerations
>> =======================
>> Use URL encoding
>
> It is obvious that you use URL encoding for URLs; instead, the section
> should say something about, for example, using non-ASCII characters.
>

_______________________________________________
Uri-review mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review