RE: other trac issues against 4395bis

Opinions about open issues:

tracker issue 48:     Can schemes set specific length limits? Should RFC4395bis say something about this?
Ted: They can, in my opinion.  We should add text that says that they can and how to say that.
Larry: OK.   "IRI schemes can set specific length limits or other constraints, as long as the limits are implementable."
   Given issue #63, length limit must not depend on whether it is IRI vs. hex-encoded into URI.

Tracker issue 49:     Say that fragment identifiers are not scheme-specific
Ted: Add a pointer to the STD that says so.
Larry:    There may be more on this at some future point might rise up somewhere else, but I'm OK for now.

#51     Make URI/IRI scheme registration template mandatory

Ted: Okay.
Larry: ok, where does this go?

#58     Use colons at end of item titles of registration template

Ted: Okay
Larry: OK, editorial


#59     How to reduce the number of "URI/IRI" occurrences

Ted: We can always let the RFC Editor help with the english; not a priority.
Larry: I think it's fine as is, let's leave this.
#60     Should we recommend using different ABNF rule names to clarify escaping?

Ted: No.  I think we should leave this recommendation out.
Larry: ok, no
#61     Remove most historic stuff (references to RFC 2717,...)

Ted: Okay
Larry:  OK with me


#62     Change the name of the registry itself

Okay.


#63     Consistency of scheme syntax definitions for URI<->IRI conversion

Ted: How will you make it consistent?
Larry: 4395bis percent-encoded variation automatically included by definition (meeting talked about this, hum on #1).

#64     Disallow registration of URI schemes with generic names 'uri', 'url', etc.

Ted: Okay
Larry: is this really necessary? Maybe this is just a guideline?

#65     Should we allow transition from 'historical' status to other ones?
Ted: No.
Larry: Not explicitly.