- From: Charles Lindsey <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 11:08:07 -0000
- To: uri@w3.org
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 14:42:47 -0500, Weibel,Stu <weibel@oclc.org> wrote:
> The introduction of two states for registered URI schemes (provisional
> and permanent) in 2717/8-bis [1] seems a very useful approach for
> providing a low-barrier mechanism for registration of new URI schemes
> while preserving a higher designation for those which have undergone the
> additional scrutiny of formal technical review.
>
> One can imagine different interpretations of this hierarchy, however,
> with important implications:
>
> In one scenario, registration of a new URI scheme would ALWAYS start
> with provisional status, after which one of several things can happen:
I think it is desirable that this process should follow the already
established process for the register of email/news/http headers, which
also has provisional and permanent sections. See RFC 3864.
Essentially, a provisional registration requires the presence of
a) An identifiable person to be responsible
b) An available published specification (e.g. an internet-draft)
As soon as one of those goes missing (e.g. the internet-draft expires) the
provisional registration ceases.
There is also provision for the IESG, or rather their nominated expert, to
advise IANA if any problem/dispute arises.
--
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5
Received on Tuesday, 11 January 2005 12:12:51 UTC