Re: [apps-discuss] Provisional URI registrations

Hello John, others,

(cc'ing the IRI WG mailing list, because it is chartered to work on an 
update of RFC 4395 (Guidelines and Registration Procedures for New URI 
Schemes); please reduce cc list in replies whenever possible)

On 2010/11/22 12:41, John C Klensin wrote:
>
>
> --On Monday, November 22, 2010 09:48 +0900 "\"Martin J.
> Dürst\""<duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>  wrote:
>
>> On 2010/11/22 7:25, Graham Klyne wrote:
>>
>>> We have "permanent", "provisional" and "historical"
>>> registration classes for URI schemes. For practical purposes,
>>> I think the "provisional" registry serves the same role as
>>> the "reserved" one you suggest [1]. I think the additional
>>> bureaucracy incurred to create a new registry class is not
>>> justified by practical benefit.
>>
>> +1.
>
> I would agree, except that:
>
> (1) We now have proposals to remove things from Provisional that
> have well-defined protocol specs and evidence of use because
> they have been Provisional too long.  Fighting battles of that
> sort is lots more painful than setting up a new registry
> category, especially since...

I don't think fighting such battles should be painful. If A says a 
scheme (or protocol) is no longer in use, and B say it's in use, then B 
just wins. Having to say "the scheme (or protocol) is still in use" 
every two years or so may indeed some pain, but not too much.

> (2) Not having a Reserved category from the beginning appears to
> be an error on IANA's part, not something the IETF specified in
> any way.

In what way is it IANA's error? RFC 4395 
(http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4395) is pretty clear (as Graham has 
already explained) that there are three categories: Permanent, 
Provisional, and Historical.

> If that is correct, it should be possible to deal
> with it as correcting an error, which is (or should be) an
> extremely lightweight procedure.

I don't understand how it could be correct, but maybe I'm missing 
something. Anyway, I encourage everybody who thinks an additional 
Reserved category is needed, or some other clarifications could help, to 
submit their proposal as an issue on draft-ietf-iri-4395bis-irireg 
(http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-iri-4395bis-irireg (Guidelines 
and Registration Procedures for New URI/IRI Schemes)) to the IRI WG 
(mailing list address: public-iri@w3.org). The current list of active 
issues of the WG can be found at 
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/iri/trac/report/1.

Regards,   Martin.

-- 
#-# Martin J. Dürst, Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-# http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp   mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp

Received on Monday, 22 November 2010 06:52:18 UTC