W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > October 2003

RE: uri, urn and info

From: <hardie@qualcomm.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 11:58:11 -0700
Message-Id: <p06002002bbacaf9e1dcc@[129.46.227.161]>
To: "Hammond, Tony (ELSLON)" <T.Hammond@elsevier.com>, "'Larry Masinter'" <LMM@acm.org>, uri@w3.org

At 5:27 PM +0100 10/10/2003, Hammond, Tony (ELSLON) wrote:
>It may also be worthwhile noting that registration with the IANA is not a
>requisite for the existence of a new URI scheme. Apparently the mere use of
>a URI with a new URI scheme (conformant to the syntax requirements of RFC
>2396) confers upon it a life of its own through the simple process of
>autovivification.
>
>RFC 2396, RFC 2717, and the W3C Working Draft "Architecture of the World
>Wide Web" expressly acknowledge this state of affairs and articulate that
>registration is highly desirable for various reasons. We, of course, fully
>subscribe to this view and are currently engaging in this registration
>process with the IETF.


I plan to send a longer response to the substantive aspects of this message,
but I think I should get a public response on this as soon as possible.  Though
RFC 2717 has language which might be interpreted as saying "if you use it,
we'll recognize it as yours", this is not how the current IESG has understood
it.  Instead, the current IESG has said that that phrasing was put in RFC 2717
to handle protocols already in common use at the time of the registration
procedures being instituted.  The current IESG has not understood it to
mean "autovivification" is a good idea.

I believe Tony and his colleagues have understood the value of registration
and acted without the intent to "squat" on a scheme name, but I want to
make sure that others understand that going out and using a scheme name
without registration will neither result in an easy later registration of the name nor
ensure that IANA is not allowed to register that same scheme name when
an applicant puts it forward for registration.

For those that are interested, here is the text at issue:

3.2 The IETF Tree

   Registration in the IETF tree requires publication of the URL scheme
   syntax and semantics in either an Informational or Standards Track
   RFC. In general, the creation of a new URL scheme requires a
   Standards Track RFC.  An Informational RFC may be employed for
   registration only in the case of a URL scheme which is already in
   wide usage and meets other standards set forth in RFC 2718 , such as
   "demonstrated utility" within the Internet Architecture; the IESG
   shall have broad discretion in determining whether an Informational
   RFC is suitable in any given case, and may either recommend changes
   to such document prior to publication, or reject it for publication.
   An Informational RFC purporting to describe a URL scheme shall not be
   published without IESG approval.  This is a departure from practice
   for Informational RFCs as set forth in RFC 2026 , for the purpose of
   ensuring that the registration of URL schemes shall serve the best
   interests of the Internet community.

			regards,
				Ted Hardie
Received on Friday, 10 October 2003 15:01:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:06 UTC