W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > March 2006

Re: on the dix: URI scheme for DIX/SXIP

From: John Merrells <merrells@sxip.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 09:54:33 -0500
Message-Id: <E6AFA6FF-9BF0-43F1-A93E-5CDB669FEDAD@sxip.com>
Cc: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>, uri@w3.org, Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>, dix@ietf.org
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>

On 17-Mar-06, at 1:29 PM, Dan Connolly wrote:

> Section 7 of http://dixs.org/index.php/Draft-merrells-dix-01.txt
> says "This document has no IANA Actions." but section 3.2.6. DIX  
> URI Namespace
> introduces a new URI scheme.

My understanding of this is that because the document is an individual
submission and not a working group document that there can be no
IANA actions from it. If it were a working group document then this
document would have to call out 'dix' registration as an action.

I'm happy to add a comment to the draft to make that clearer though.

> Introducing a new URI scheme just for DIX is not a good use of  
> scarce community resources;
> let's not do the DAV: thing again.
> Instead of
>   dix:/homesite
> just use something like
>   http://dixs.org/terms#homesite

This issue then becomes who owns that domain.

> There are some IANA considerations around dixs.org; IANA should
> make sure that name is reserved for this purpose in perpetuity if this
> spec is adopted. Or the DIX profile should use iana.org or ietf.org .
> (There's a BCP that says to use urn:ietf , but I recommend against  
> that;
> I intend to renew the internet draft that argues for http/dns rather
> than urn:ietf: .)
> The draft charter also doesn't say that DIX is introducing a new  
> URI scheme.
>   http://dixs.org/index.php/DIX_Charter
> Please add something to the charter about getting review for the  
> dix: scheme.

Note that draft-merrells-dix-01 (aka dmd1) is a write up of an  
example solution
to the problem space we're considering here.

If a WG were to be created then dmd1 would just be source material  
for another
set of documents written to describe the WG's collective solution to  
the problem.
The consensus of the group may or may not be to base that work on  
dmd1 and
may or may not want to use URI's in that way and may or may not want to
register a new scheme.

Received on Monday, 20 March 2006 14:54:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:10 UTC