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

RE: New URI registration draft; significant changed

From: McDonald, Ira <imcdonald@sharplabs.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 14:25:00 -0800
Message-ID: <CFEE79A465B35C4385389BA5866BEDF00C7A5A@mailsrvnt02.enet.sharplabs.com>
To: "'Larry Masinter'" <LMM@acm.org>, uri@w3.org

Tony, Ted, and Larry,

My compliments!

I just read this whole draft pretty carefully.  I found
_no_ nits to complain about.  I'm delighted to see that
the old text about 'published in an RFC' is gone.

Others - please read this draft soon and send comments.  
I personally think they've got it right this time.

Cheers,
- Ira

Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
Blue Roof Music / High North Inc
PO Box 221  Grand Marais, MI  49839
phone: +1-906-494-2434
email: imcdonald@sharplabs.com

-----Original Message-----
From: uri-request@w3.org [mailto:uri-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Larry
Masinter
Sent: Monday, February 21, 2005 1:08 AM
To: uri@w3.org
Subject: New URI registration draft; significant changed



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 22:31:20 GMT

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