RE: Proposed wording (was: Duplication of provisional URI namespace tokens in 2717/8-bis)

> "SHOULD NOT" simply is not strong enough to allow organizations to
> proceed with confidence in deploying business systems that cannot be
> protected from ignorance or malice.

"MUST NOT" does not protect you against ignorance or malice, either.
Some other mechanisms must be employed to protect the registry from
misregistrations, for whatever reasons those registrations
might have been submitted.

> This is especially true given that in all this discussion no one has
> advanced plausible arguments concerning the supposed duplicates in
> existing URI scheme proposals and the consequences thereof.

Guaranteeing uniqueness to scheme names that have not passed any
review would make the registry itself a target for abuse.

It is at least plausible that URI scheme names might see an echo
of the abuse of top-level domains to first-come-first-serve
allocation of short, friendly names.

> There has yet to be a single unanswered objection to the proposed
> requirement that ALL newly registered provisional tokens be unique.

There is some ambiguity about which "provisional" you're talking
about, hansen-provisional or weibel-provisional. I wrote:

# I think that your proposal is basically to take hansen-permanent
# and split it into weibel-permanent and weibel-provisional,
# and map hansen-provisional to weibel-vernacular.

if you agree with this analysis: I think it is important that the
levels that require review also assure uniqueness among those
schemes that have passed review; I also think that we should be
very careful about what guarantees for short names whose registration
haven't passed any review.

Larry

Received on Friday, 4 February 2005 18:16:40 UTC