W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > November 2003

RE: non-IETF tree URI scheme draft

From: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 17:57:01 -0800
To: "'Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress'" <rden@loc.gov>, uri@w3.org
Message-id: <006201c3ae40$6c450b30$c3432099@MasinterT40>

> Now if the theory is again that it's to distinguish IETF from non-IETF
> schemes, I'm afraid I'm going to have to start complaining all over

It's to distinguish between schemes that have been
reviewed (and approved) by the IETF and those that

I think that the requirements for the scheme
registration are:

1) Bad schemes (poorly defined, insecure) should be

2) If bad schemes can't be discouraged, at least people
 can find out whether IETF thinks a scheme is good.

3) Frivolous (vanity, cybersquatting, misleading)
  scheme registration should be discouraged.

4) Collisions should be avoided.

If you want to think that (4) is more important than
(2), that's OK with me. I don't think it matters.
We need to meet all of the requirements, and so
the order doesn't matter.

I think the current method (all URI schemes must
be reviewed and IESG approves) meets all of the
requirements, but people also want

5) It should be easy to register new schemes, even
  if IESG doesn't like it or if people don't want to
  wait for review.

so we're talking about changing the process. I don't
think the requirements (1)-(4) have gone away.
Received on Tuesday, 18 November 2003 20:57:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:06 UTC