W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > January 2005

RE: status of Provisional URI registration in 2717/8-bis

From: Weibel,Stu <weibel@oclc.org>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 10:14:45 -0500
Message-ID: <8CC50D49B6828C4FBAB7DA1FCAB0526A271399@OAEXCH1SERVER.oa.oclc.org>
To: "Graham Klyne" <GK@ninebynine.org>, <uri@w3.org>

2717/8-bis represents a step forward in simplifying and rationalizing
URI scheme registrations.  It also introduces a means of incremental
approval which can support innovation on the one hand while protecting
the stability of well established schemes on the other.  Both of these
goals seem like good things.  I don't think any of us believe that
innovation in the field of locators and identifiers is over?

I agree that there should be no guarantee of longevity for provisional
schemes, but believe just as strongly that nothing should *preclude*
longevity for such scheme registrations.   


-----Original Message-----
From: Graham Klyne [mailto:GK@ninebynine.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 8:50 AM
To: Weibel,Stu; uri@w3.org
Subject: Re: status of Provisional URI registration in 2717/8-bis

Stu,

When a similar model was discussed for message header fields [1], some
people were concerned that the existence of a registry for headers that
had not been subjected to review and community consensus-forming might
be used as a back-door route to creating poorly-designed de-facto
standards.  The name "provisional" was chosen there partly to make it
clear that these were not definitions to which the community was
committed;  in that sense, the implication of non-permanence is useful,
even in the absence of any specific expectation of extinction.

In some cases, the intended purpose of the provisional registry was to
document designs that have been published, so that the lessons of
history are available for those who wish to learn from them.

So, in the case of rfc3864 [1], the registry record of fields labelled
"provisional" is indeed potentially long-lived, but there is no
guarantee that it will be so in any particular case.

Further (referring to your other message), the non-requirement of
uniqueness in the provisional registry was specifically to allow
alternative proposals to be recorded without creating a .com-style "land
grab".

I'm not making any specific claim here that these criteria are
appropriate for URI schemes, concerning which I think the bar for
introduction should be at least a little higher than for message header
fields.  (Also, there are fewer unregistered schemes that have escaped
to breed in the wild.)

#g
--

[1] http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3864.txt

At 14:42 10/01/05 -0500, Weibel,Stu 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:
>
>     a.) a registrant takes no further steps beyond provisional
>registration; others may discover the registration, use it or not,
>replicate its functionality or not.  The registration remains active
for
>as long as its instigators choose to sustain its documentation and
>specification, or it may simply fade into irrelevance, depending on
>uptake.  (only the completion of an appropriate registration template
>required)
>
>     b.) a registrant instigates formal technical review of a
>provisionally-registered scheme, which is, after due consideration,
>rejected according to standard procedural review.  The scheme remains a
>provisionally registered URI scheme, used (or not) by its advocates.
>The registration remains active for as long as its instigators choose
to
>sustain its documentation and specification, or it may simply fade into
>irrelevance, depending on uptake.  (completion of an appropriate
>registration template and standards-track Internet Draft required; no
>requirement for maintaining ID in the case of rejection)
>
>
>     c.) a registrant instigates formal technical review of a
>provisionally-registered scheme, which is, after due consideration, is
>approved and designated a permanent URI scheme.  .  (completion of an
>appropriate registration template and standards-track Internet Draft
>required; approval transfers responsibility for maintenance of ID to
>IETF)
>
>Is this the intent of the authors?
>
>If so, it may be worth considering changing the name of the state from
>"provisional" to something like "Informational".  Provisional implies
>temporary, and it may well be that URIs which, for business or
strategic
>reasons will never become part of the permanent URI array, may still be
>of importance to a limited set of stakeholders.  Similarly, "permanent"
>certainly conveys persistence, which is desirable, but implies that
>other calsses are not permanent, which is not necessarily logically
>true.  But the names of these things aside... the important thing is
the
>underlying model for states.
>
>Is "provisional" potentially long-lived, or is it intended ONLY as a
>step to "permanent" or "rejected"?
>
>
>[1]
>http://ietfreport.isoc.org/idref/draft-hansen-2717bis-2718bis-uri-guide
l
>ines/
>
>
>stu
>
>Stuart Weibel
>Senior Research Scientist
>OCLC Research
>http://public.xdi.org/=Stuart.L.Weibel
>+1.614.764.6081

------------
Graham Klyne
For email:
http://www.ninebynine.org/#Contact
Received on Tuesday, 11 January 2005 15:15:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:08 UTC