Re: Some remarks on 4395bis

03.07.2011 3:29, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
> * Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
>> I've recently re-read the IRI WG document - 4395bis draft
>> (draft-ietf-iri-4395bis-irireg).  What I'd currently like to ask is why
>> we want to write a new document obsoleting RFC 4395, but in fact
>> repeating everything currently found in it modulo some minor
>> clarifications and extending its action on schemes used with IRIs.  I
>> personally think such approach is too heavyweight.  Couldn't writing and
>> publishing an RFC updating RFC 4395 to accommodate IRI schemes in its
>> registration procedures be enough?  Any thoughts on this?
> I think you have to consider how people use the document. If you have a
> very widely known document that people refer to frequently, keeping it
> as it is and making minor updates through other documents makes a lot of
> sense. RFC 4395 however is mostly read by people unfamiliar with it when
> they contemplate registering a scheme (and they are best served having
> everything in one place) and by a very small group of people who review
> scheme registrations. As member of both groups, I certainly prefer to
> have one document where I do not need to check whether a later document
> changed something or other.
Current "Changes from RFC 4395" say:

> Appendix A.  Changes Since RFC 4395
>
>     1.  Significant edits to be clear that a "URI scheme" and an "IRI
>         scheme" are the same thing.
>     2.  Added the "example:" URL Scheme.
>     3.  Allow for IRI-specific scheme registration.
>     4.  Clarify that the URI scheme registry is also the IRI scheme
>         registry.
I think that (1) and (4) is served by the following text in 3987bis:

>     IANA maintains a registry of "URI schemes".  A "URI scheme" also
>     serves an "IRI scheme".
>
>     To clarify that the URI scheme registration process also applies to
>     IRIs, change the description of the "URI schemes" registry header to
>     say "[RFC4395] defines an IANA-maintained registry of URI Schemes.
>     These registries include the Permanent and Provisional URI Schemes.
>     RFC XXXX updates this registry to designate that schemes may also
>     indicate their usability as IRI schemes.
>
>     Update "per RFC 4395" to "per RFC 4395 and RFC XXXX".
(2) is not a significant change.  So I don't see the reason to supersede 
the document because of this only.  As procedural questions remain 
mostly unchanged, those who want to register a new IRI/ URI scheme won't 
be constrained by the presence of another RFC which updates RFC 4395 to 
mention it is also applicable to IRIs.

Mykyta

Received on Sunday, 3 July 2011 04:43:53 UTC