W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-soap-jms@w3.org > October 2010

Re: Notes on IANA registration of variants for JMS URI scheme

From: Mark Phillips <M8PHILLI@uk.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 10:49:36 +0100
To: Eric Johnson <eric@tibco.com>
Cc: Amelia A Lewis <alewis@tibco.com>, SOAP-JMS <public-soap-jms@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OF125F8B11.F9882FE0-ON802577C3.0034947D-802577C3.0035FAED@uk.ibm.com>
Thanks Eric, Amy,

I can confirm that IBM does not use any alternative JMS URI variants (and I
can't see a need for one arising  in the future) so IBM does not require
any vnd.* variants to be added to the URI spec.

Regards
Mark



From:       Eric Johnson <eric@tibco.com>
To:         Amelia A Lewis <alewis@tibco.com>
Cc:         SOAP-JMS <public-soap-jms@w3.org>
Date:       20/10/2010 22:30
Subject:    Re: Notes on IANA registration of variants for JMS URI scheme
Sent by:    public-soap-jms-request@w3.org



Hi Amy,

An important question, which I'm thinking we should explicitly ask of
this group.

Given an actual RFC for JMS URI, would others on this list need use of
"variants" not currently specified?

If yes, can you provide any details about what that variant might be?

-Eric.

On 10/20/10 11:37 AM, Amelia A Lewis wrote:
> I thought that the reason for specifying variants was because several
> of the vendors in the consortium had private, existing schemes, which
> could be effectively "grandfathered" by prefixing with "jms:"?
>
> Amy!
> On Wed, 20 Oct 2010 11:20:04 -0700, Eric Johnson wrote:
>> My action 218 [1] is to report back to the group on options for IANA
>> registration of variants in the JMS URI scheme.
>>
>> In case you're curious, you can look at the long list of current
>> registrations [4].
>> The registration question is governed by RFC 5226 [2].
>>
>> One option - a "delegated" namespace - think Java package names, or
>> DNS names (where the IANA only manages the top level).
>>
>> Another option - one or more designated experts that will review
>> proposed registrations.
>>
>> The IANA defines the following "policy" definitions for ways to treat
>> registration [3]:
>>
>>     * private use
>>     * experimental use
>>     * hierarchical allocation
>>     * first-come, first-served
>>     * expert review
>>     * specification required
>>     * RFC required
>>     * IETF review
>>     * standards action
>>     * IESG approval
>>
>> We can divide up the "space" of possible registered variants, for
>> example defining a prefix for variants like "x-" which defines
>> "private use" or "experimental use", and perhaps everything else
>> comes under "specification required."
>>
>> My suggestion:
>> Since we do not expect any further registration of JMS variants, in a
>> sense, it almost doesn't matter what we choose.  It seems like a
>> combination of first-come, first-served registration, coupled with an
>> "x-" prefix for experimental use will provide appropriately low
>> overhead.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> If we follow my suggestion, I suggest the following changes to the spec:
>>
>> In section 4:
>> After:
>> The three recognized variants (<jms-variant>  above) are "jndi",
>> "queue", and "topic".
>>
>> ... add:
>> Variant names starting with "x-" are reserved for experimental use.
>>
>> Also, section 9 needs changes, but depending on what we decide above,
>> that will affect what we put there.
>>
>> -Eric.
>>
>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/soapjms/tracker/actions/218
>> [2] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5226
>> [3] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5226#section-4.1
>> [4] http://www.iana.org/protocols/
>>
>>
Received on Thursday, 21 October 2010 09:58:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 18 December 2010 18:16:25 GMT