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

Last week, I raised a question concerning the uniqueness of scheme
tokens for provisionally-registered schemes in Hansen 2717/18-bis.  It
is a fundamental question concerning the functionality of the proposed
procedure.  The stated intent of the document -- to NOT assure
uniqueness for IANA-registered tokens -- represents, in my estimation, a
severe deficiency which can easily be rectified.  

Larry Masinter's response to my question was, in part,

> In any case, if you don't like the proposed process, 
> what would you propose in its place? 
> This seems to me like the best we can do, 
> given all the requirements.

What I propose is, very simply, that IANA-registered tokens be unique.
And yes, on a first come, first-served basis.  To do otherwise is to
strip the U from URI under the imprimatur of IANA.  Surely this cannot
be judged a good thing for Internet architecture?

Larry raised the point that:

> The proposed registration rules are based on the fact 
> that it is possible to invent and deploy a URI scheme 
> without IANA and IESG approval.

This may be the case, but shouldn't we be providing incentives to reduce
both the likelihood and impact of this happening?  Assuring that ALL
IANA-registered URI scheme tokens are unique is a step in this


Stuart Weibel
Senior Research Scientist
OCLC Research

Received on Wednesday, 19 January 2005 13:47:48 UTC