Proposed Status Categories for URI Scheme registry

I am convinced by the argument of Larry and others that it is important
that a URI registry reflect the real & messy world as far as possible.
I remain convinced as well that there must be provisions for orderly
promotion of demonstrably-useful schemes, and that the business cases
for such schemes, as well as good network practices, require assured
unique tokens.

I believe that both of these requirements can be met by adding an
additional status category to the three described in 2717/18-bis.  A
high level summary of these categories follows:

Proposed status categories for a URI Scheme registry


   Documented by Standards Track RFC
   Full Technical Review
   Unique token assured
   Revision authority rests with IETF
   New candidate schemes must have demonstrated usefulness as a
Provisional scheme prior to technical review


   Documented by at least an Informational RFC
   Provisional technical review required (details and scope open to
   Revision authority rests with author or designated organization 
   Registration records openly annotatable (wiki-like public comment)
   Unique token assured
   Tokens may be recycled after a period of dormancy
Vernacular (wild-type)

  Documentation unspecified (none | author-managed |
  Registration record may be created by author or third party
  Registration records openly annotatable (wiki-like public comment)
  No assurance of unique token
  Tokens may be recycled after a period of dormancy

   Deprecated or superceded schemes, as designated by the IETF
   recyclability of token an open question [would one ever want to
allow, gopher: to re-emerge?]


   There are always likely to be schemes in development or use that no
one has registered.  Such schemes may be registered as Vernacular
schemes by anyone as they emerge.

Received on Friday, 21 January 2005 14:33:37 UTC