Subject: [Uri-review] Request for review

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2011 09:25:42 +0200

URI scheme name:
   pack
Status:
   historical
URI scheme syntax:
   There was no pack: syntax compatible with STD 66, cf.
   <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/uri-review/current/msg00678.html>,
   <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/uri-review/current/msg00548.html>.
URI scheme semantics:
   n/a due to a lack of STD 66 syntax.
Encoding considerations:
   The pack: encoding assumed US-ASCII after un-escaping percent-encoded
   characters in an encapsulated <authority> (4.c in the expired drafts)
   and case-insensitive US-ASCII in the <path> (5.c in the expired drafts).
Applications/protocols that use this URI scheme name:
   The pack: scheme could not be used as an URI scheme in applications
   or protocols.  Other uses of pack: are noted in the expired drafts.
Interoperability considerations:
   All URI schemes have to follow the generic STD 66 syntax, as that was
   not the case for pack: any "interoperability" would be by the chance
   of similarly broken implementations.
Security considerations:
   The generic and overall URI syntax is specified in STD 66, anything
   else (not limited to pack:) is no URI and could cause havoc, compare
   <http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/358017>.
Contact:
   <[email-masked]> and <[email-masked]> mailing lists.
Author/Change controller:
   IESG (the transition from a "provisional" to "historical" status is
   not covered by BCP 35 section 5.3; maybe the pack: scheme could be
   simply identified as "non-URI" and removed from the scheme registry).
References:
   STD 66 (RFC 3986), I-D.shur-pack-uri-scheme-05 (same as -03 and -04).

---

From: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2011 11:41:30 +0300

Frank, all,

20.08.2011 10:25, Frank Ellermann wrote:
> [ . . . ]

I suppose this is the best possible way, even despites RFC 4395 has no 
mention of how this can be done.  As you've mentioned before, 'pack' 
URIs aren't 3986-compatible; this means that they aren't URIs in context 
of the current in-force-standard.  Anyway, Andrey Shur was declared to 
be "Change controller", and he will have to accept such action.  I'm 
cc'ing this message to [email-masked]; so 
let's wait the authors to act.

Mykyta

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

---

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 17:57:34 +0200

>   <http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/358017>.

This would need to elaborate on how VU#358017 is relevant here.
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:[email-masked] · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 23:08:54 +0200

> This would need to elaborate on how VU#358017 is relevant here.

A registration template isn't a good place to discuss problems caused by
non-URIs interpreted as URIs.  VU#358018 had nothing to do with "pack:",
it is an example that problems with broken URIs are not only theoretical.
I suggest to remove that example instead of elaborating it, see below.

-Frank

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
URI scheme name:
  pack
Status:
  historical
URI scheme syntax:
  else (not limited to pack:) is no URI and could cause havoc.

---

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 00:07:43 +0200

>I suggest to remove that example instead of elaborating it, see below.

(Removing the reference removes my concern about it.)
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:[email-masked] · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/