Duplication of provisional URI namespace tokens in 2717/8-bis

Do I correctly understand the intent of the authors of 2717/8-bis [1] to
say that registered provisional URI schemes are *not* required to have
unique tokens?

Such a state of affairs would seem to be potentially destructive,
allowing casual or intentional replication of provisional URI schemes,
and thus significantly impairing the usefulness of provisional
registration. 

Would it not be better to require that any URI scheme registered with
IANA have a unique registered identity token, ensuring that registration
in the IANA registry, either provisional or permanent, assures that no
name collisions would occur.  This would increase the usefulness of
provisional registrations, and the network value of the IANA registry
(stronger incentive to use it and link to it).

[1]
http://ietfreport.isoc.org/idref/draft-hansen-2717bis-2718bis-uri-guidel
ines/

stu

Stuart Weibel
Senior Research Scientist
OCLC Research
http://public.xdi.org/=Stuart.L.Weibel
+1.614.764.6081

Received on Tuesday, 11 January 2005 02:01:36 UTC