W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > February 2005

New URI registration draft; significant changed

From: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 22:03:01 -0800
To: uri@w3.org
Message-id: <0IC80093MZH12G@mailsj-v1.corp.adobe.com>

An updated version was just sent to the Internet Drafts editor; versions
currently
available also at:

http://larry.masinter.net/draft-hansen-2717bis-2718bis-uri-guidelines-03.htm
l
http://larry.masinter.net/draft-hansen-2717bis-2718bis-uri-guidelines-03.txt
http://larry.masinter.net/draft-hansen-2717bis-2718bis-uri-guidelines-03.xml
(editable) 
http://larry.masinter.net/draft-hansen-2717bis-2718bis-uri-guidelines-03.ful
l.xml (viewable)

This involved a significant change to the proposal, based on a more careful
review
of RFC 2434 (BCP 26) on "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations
Section",
which recommends not inventing a new process. The goal has been to minimize
unnecessary
process, so, in this draft, the process required for all registrations is
"Expert
Review", with different guidelines for 'Permanent', 'Provisional', and
'Historical'.
The Designated Expert may recommend IETF review and IESG approval if wanted.
(Don't reply to this summary; read the actual text, please.)

In addition, all values are unique (no duplicates) unless the IESG approves
changing an existing registration to point out the other usages or allows
transfer.

I also tried to incorporate most of Roy's suggestions as well as some of the
others; however, I didn't add another level (well, except for 'historical'),
but instead tried to make the process simpler and more deterministic.


Larry
-- 
http://larry.masinter.net
Received on Monday, 21 February 2005 06:07:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 13 January 2011 12:15:35 GMT