- From: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
- Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 17:57:01 -0800
- To: "'Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress'" <rden@loc.gov>, uri@w3.org
> Now if the theory is again that it's to distinguish IETF from non-IETF > schemes, I'm afraid I'm going to have to start complaining all over again. It's to distinguish between schemes that have been reviewed (and approved) by the IETF and those that haven't. I think that the requirements for the scheme registration are: 1) Bad schemes (poorly defined, insecure) should be discouraged. 2) If bad schemes can't be discouraged, at least people can find out whether IETF thinks a scheme is good. 3) Frivolous (vanity, cybersquatting, misleading) scheme registration should be discouraged. 4) Collisions should be avoided. If you want to think that (4) is more important than (2), that's OK with me. I don't think it matters. We need to meet all of the requirements, and so the order doesn't matter. I think the current method (all URI schemes must be reviewed and IESG approves) meets all of the requirements, but people also want 5) It should be easy to register new schemes, even if IESG doesn't like it or if people don't want to wait for review. so we're talking about changing the process. I don't think the requirements (1)-(4) have gone away.
Received on Tuesday, 18 November 2003 20:57:16 UTC