[Spice-devel] [PATCH spice-protocol] Add Spice URI Scheme document

[Hoffmann, Gerd]

On Tue, Jan 08, 2019 at 03:54:26PM +0400, Marc-André Lureau wrote:
> Hi
> 
> On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 6:56 PM Marc-André Lureau
> <marcandre.lureau at redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 6:43 PM Frediano Ziglio <fziglio at redhat.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > From: Marc-André Lureau <marcandre.lureau at redhat.com>
> > > >
> > > > A recent discussion about Spice URI scheme on the QEMU mailing list
> > > > with Gerd prompted me to make an effort to standardize the Spice URIs
> > > > usage. So far, it is mostly used and desribed in spice-gtk (see URI in
> > > > man/spice-client.pod). But it would be more appropriate as part of
> > > > spice-protocol.
> > > >
> > > > Based on the "vnc" URI Scheme
> > > > RFC (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7869), I sketeched a Spice URI
> > > > Scheme document, that should cover current URI usage in spice-gtk, and
> > > > should open up possibilities for future discussions and proposals.
> > > >
> > > > At some point, it would also be worthwhile to follow the "vnc" scheme,
> > > > and turn this into a IETF RFC and register with IANA etc.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Marc-André Lureau <marcandre.lureau at redhat.com>
> > >
> > > I did read briefly and seems good.
> > > Why not putting in spice-common/docs so we can generate the HTML too
> > > easily?
> >
> > Whatever is the place to discuss a "common standard" works for me.
> > (spice-common is more about an implementation in my mind).
> 
> So what to decide? I still prefer spice-protocol, as this is the place
> I would expect that document & updates.

Hmm, spice-protocol is about the wire protocol (also guest/host protocol
aka qxl).  So not a perfect fit either IMHO.

I'd go with spice-common/docs for purely practical reasons, because you
can easily link the spec then (assuming the html generated is available
somewhere online).

cheers,
  Gerd