RE: New URI registration draft; significant changed

Thanks for the kudos. I think I waited until a little too close to the
deadline, so Ted didn't have a chance to see this version before I
shipped it. You might have any nits, but I do.

There are several formatting problems with the .txt version; not as
much of a problem with the .html. I just edited the XML and didn't
have time to proofread the results. These will get fixed up in the
next version, so I don't think you need to point them out :) (things
like paragraph separations being unclear).

Martin Duerst (2/8) pointed out that "" never took
off. I left the (optional) mailing list review to be I'm
still a little uneasy and wished we could have a different mailing
list name, even if the two were set up to automatically track (e.g.,
make a member of

Tim Berners-Lee suggested adding a pointer to the W3C Web Architecture
document. I did, but I'm not sure I gave it justice. I had thought of
incorporating both the reasons for always registering schemes, and
also the advice about when using a new MIME type is preferable to
using a new URI scheme. Next version.

Stu Weibel proposed several alternative methods of registration which
were interesting and worthy, but, after reading RFC 2434 (as
suggested by David Black) I thought we should try to stick to one of
its recommended.  I hope that the current draft addresses both the
"uniqueness" concerns (guaranteed, unless IESG approved), as well as
the "land grab" concerns (expert review will catch blatant cases.) Is
it credible that expert review against the limited criteria for
"provisional" registration can happen in a timely fashion?

I wondered about allowing a free-for-all private use "x-" designation,
or going back and proposing "vnd.organization.whatever" as a kind of
provisional registration that required even less review.

I'm not sure it's clear how this process affects the development of
internet drafts and RFCs that register URI schemes. If an individual
or working group has an Internet Draft with a new scheme definition,
which should it register it? Before anyone writes the first
experimental implementation, I suppose? How frequently should the
registration be updated? Is it possible to point to "the latest
version of draft-workingroup-stufwithscheme-XX"?  Should we point out
that the specification of the URI scheme MAY appear in a standards
track document, in which case the URI itself is standards track, and
that the registry itself doesn't track the standards dependence; e.g.,
a standards track document which makes a normative use of URIs as
protocol elements and cares about the schemes should make a normative
reference to the URI scheme specification, which thus needs to have
the appropriate maturity level.  Is it necessary to say this?

I continue to be confused as to whether the IETF prefers "historic" or
"historical" as the right word for cruft.

Charles Lindsey gave a use case about VenderCo with their new wizzy:
URI scheme, finding an old defunct registration. I'm not sure the
document makes it clear how to ask for IESG approval. It's not a
"protocol action"; how does it get on the IESG agenda?

Dan Connolly sent a pointer to what I think is intended to be a list
of 'known URI schemes', but the web site isn't responding at the
moment. I'm expecting we will want to populate the provisional
registry quickly with all known schemes, and encourage the actual
owners to ask to update them.


Received on Tuesday, 22 February 2005 03:29:25 UTC