Re: URI registration

Graham, your message header registry is exactly the model I intend to 
follow in the 2717 rewrite Ted and I will be working on.

	Tony

Graham Klyne wrote:

> 
> Many of the points raised below were discussed when we were working on 
> registries for email headers [1], which have now been approved and are 
> awaiting RFC publication.
> 
> While I won't claim that the model is perfect for URIs, maybe it's worth 
> taking a look at it for ideas?
> 
> Ah, now I see the message header field registry was noted in 
> discussion.  Anyway, here's a reference for anyone interested [1].
> 
> #g
> -- 
> 
> [1] http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-klyne-msghdr-registry-07.txt
> 
> 
> At 20:55 08/08/04 -0700, Larry Masinter wrote:
> 
>> * URI registration is broken:
>>
>> The public perception of URI scheme registration is off from
>> reality. There are many schemes whose attempted registration has
>> languished for years without any deterministic process for either
>> registering them or saying 'no' definitively.
>>
>> We originally made an exception to the guidelines for URI schemes
>> which allowed schemes to be registered even if they didn't quite meet
>> the guidelines if they were widely deployed. The result has been
>> people just use their scheme and hope that if they get widely
>> deployed, they will get a registration.
>>
>> The original intent of the high bar was keep the number of registered
>> schemes down.  But people just mint them, and plan to register later.
>> Now are seeing conflicts; e.g., 'mmms:' has diffenent interpretations
>> used by 3GPP and Microsoft. We need to fix this.
>>
>> Ted suggests that we abandon the idea that registration will reduce
>> total number. Our only purpose should be to eliminate namespace
>> conflicts.
>>
>> * What's in the registry? Is there a 'line'?
>>
>> We discussed various forms of registries that might set some line --
>> schemes below the line not as good as schemes above the line. A
>> provisional registration followed by a permanent one after six months,
>> etc.
>>
>> Ted suggests a provisional registration that provides a specification
>> or an implementation pointer, for six months.  If someone already has
>> a provisional registration and a spec, they win, they get in.
>>
>> James suggests that perhaps the rule is that the scheme has to have
>> two different implementations.
>>
>> Leslie asks how one might make a URI processor that can handle a
>> zillion different schemes.
>>
>> Leslie suggests that there are two classes: ones with published specs,
>> one without; we should discourage non-protocol schemes.
>>
>> Requiring a 'definition' or a 'protocol' for a scheme might not be
>> enough; Paul gave an example of a scheme with a 'definition' which is
>> 'just like http', i.e., it's well-defined, but useless as a URI
>> scheme.
>>
>> John points out that if we set up barriers, people will do whatever
>> they do anyway.
>>
>> Larry suggests registering implementations of URI schemes.
>>
>> Larry says rather than setting a threshold ("must have at least 1
>> implementation") just document the values in the registry, and let
>> people come to their own conclusions.
>>
>> Leslie says the criteria might be running code and/or specification is
>> enough to get above the line.  Larry wants us to never draw a line.
>> Larry wants us just list pointers; people will game the line.
>>
>> Leslie thinks that "community vote" is OK, as long as we clearly
>> define what is IETF (as in: on standards track). Larry agrees.
>>
>> * Abuse:
>>
>> Roy says that we might also need to worry about preventing abuse,
>> e.g., registering URI schemes with other people's trade names, etc.
>>
>> John points out that there is an easy denial-of-service on other
>> people's names. With IANA and port numbers, the rule was 'you get one
>> for free' but for the second registration, you need to provide
>> something, e.g., a protocol definition.
>>
>> Paul says there are big WIPO problems.  John says that WIPO will
>> probably just let people sue each other.  John says that ICANN just
>> defers to WIPO.
>>
>> Paul talked about formal association with WIPO.
>> John points out (again) about insanity and WIPO.
>>
>> James says we don't have a problem now because the bar is so high; if
>> we lower the bar, it's going to become a problem.
>>
>> Geoff talks about WGs "preemting" registration. [[ed: ??]]
>>
>> * Duplicates (and comparison to header registry)
>>
>> Larry suggested that perhaps allowing multiple registrations for the
>> same scheme might be allowed. This caused wild disagreement in the
>> room ("that's nuts", "terrible, terrible", "if we allow collision,
>> let's just not do this").
>>
>> Pete says we had the same fight about the header registry; points out
>> that we wanted a single place for people who didn't want to have a
>> conflict to look.
>>
>> Pete thinks that we can have duplicates in the registry.  Pete says
>> "document usage, allow people to see what isn't use".  John says let
>> the bad guys duke it out.
>>
>> Leslie asks "what happens when a bad guy wants to add a second
>> registation for urn:?".
>>
>> Larry thought that allowing duplicates might reduce some DoS
>> values, because someone else registering 'roy:' wouldn't stop
>> Roy from using it.
>>
>> Ted thinks the bar should be set above allowing multiple registration.
>>
>> Martins says the Web just doesn't work with multiple schemes.  Martin
>> wants each one clear, and wants to resolve the problem with the
>> current duplicates.
>>
>> Leslie would have preferred a universe with just one, and a smaller
>> number of schemes. But she wants to acknowledge reality. We should
>> give the clearest picture possible of the universe.
>>
>> Ted acknowledges that keeping the number of URI schemes low was not of
>> benefit to the user. Argues that trying to shape it to avoid collision
>> is paramount.  Paul agrees with Leslie.
>>
>> John points out that the header registry's purpose is to say "here's
>> the legitimate use of foo, but there is another use".  The header
>> registry is used for security and user-defense warning (e.g.,
>> which systems might send headers which have different meanings).
>>
>> Martin asks if the header registry works and what implementers think
>> of it; how do negative comments get into the registry?
>>
>> John says the negative comments can get there through the standards
>> process.
>>
>> Tony Hansen clarifies how the header registry works.
> 
> 
> ------------
> Graham Klyne
> For email:
> http://www.ninebynine.org/#Contact
> 
>

Received on Monday, 9 August 2004 13:13:29 UTC