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

It would be helpful if those who hold the view expressed here could
indicate explain why assuring uniqueness is detrimental.

By exposing requirements explicitly, I think we have a better chance of
either coming to agreement or at least understanding clearly why we
don't, and may, as a byproduct, end up with a set of commonly understood
explicit requirements that can be used for policy design.


-----Original Message-----
From: [] On Behalf Of Mark
Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2005 11:34 AM
Subject: Re: Duplication of provisional URI namespace tokens in

On Wed, Jan 19, 2005 at 08:47:10AM -0500, Weibel,Stu wrote:
> 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?

Yes.  And I believe Dan's suggestion is a good way to do this, as it
decouples policy enforcement from registration, allowing the registry to
reflect reality.

>  Assuring that ALL
> IANA-registered URI scheme tokens are unique is a step in this 
> direction.

I respectfully suggest that it would be a step in the opposite

Just my 2c.

Mark Baker.   Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.

Received on Thursday, 20 January 2005 18:25:34 UTC