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

status of Provisional URI registration in 2717/8-bis

From: Weibel,Stu <weibel@oclc.org>
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 14:42:47 -0500
Message-ID: <8CC50D49B6828C4FBAB7DA1FCAB0526A271388@OAEXCH1SERVER.oa.oclc.org>
To: <uri@w3.org>

The introduction of two states for registered URI schemes (provisional
and permanent) in  2717/8-bis [1] seems a very useful approach for
providing a low-barrier mechanism for registration of new URI schemes
while preserving a higher designation for those which have undergone the
additional scrutiny of formal technical review.  

One can imagine different interpretations of this hierarchy, however,
with important implications:

In one scenario, registration of a new URI scheme would ALWAYS start
with provisional status, after which one of several things can happen:

    a.) a registrant takes no further steps beyond provisional
registration; others may discover the registration, use it or not,
replicate its functionality or not.  The registration remains active for
as long as its instigators choose to sustain its documentation and
specification, or it may simply fade into irrelevance, depending on
uptake.  (only the completion of an appropriate registration template
required)

    b.) a registrant instigates formal technical review of a
provisionally-registered scheme, which is, after due consideration,
rejected according to standard procedural review.  The scheme remains a
provisionally registered URI scheme, used (or not) by its advocates.
The registration remains active for as long as its instigators choose to
sustain its documentation and specification, or it may simply fade into
irrelevance, depending on uptake.  (completion of an appropriate
registration template and standards-track Internet Draft required; no
requirement for maintaining ID in the case of rejection)


    c.) a registrant instigates formal technical review of a
provisionally-registered scheme, which is, after due consideration, is
approved and designated a permanent URI scheme.  .  (completion of an
appropriate registration template and standards-track Internet Draft
required; approval transfers responsibility for maintenance of ID to
IETF)

Is this the intent of the authors?

If so, it may be worth considering changing the name of the state from
"provisional" to something like "Informational".  Provisional implies
temporary, and it may well be that URIs which, for business or strategic
reasons will never become part of the permanent URI array, may still be
of importance to a limited set of stakeholders.  Similarly, "permanent"
certainly conveys persistence, which is desirable, but implies that
other calsses are not permanent, which is not necessarily logically
true.  But the names of these things aside... the important thing is the
underlying model for states.

Is "provisional" potentially long-lived, or is it intended ONLY as a
step to "permanent" or "rejected"?
 

[1]
http://ietfreport.isoc.org/idref/draft-hansen-2717bis-2718bis-uri-guidel
ines/


stu

Stuart Weibel
Senior Research Scientist
OCLC Research
http://public.xdi.org/=Stuart.L.Weibel
+1.614.764.6081	 
Received on Tuesday, 11 January 2005 02:01:36 GMT

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