RE: Proposed Status Categories for URI Scheme registry

At 07:47 25/01/05 +0900, Michael Mealling wrote:
>While the incentive is a "nice to have", IMHO, by itself it isn't
>sufficient to create an urgency of formal registration that will solve
>any of our problems with the current lack of registration that's going
>on. In addition to the carrot, I'd also like to see a stick such as "all
>URI schemes referenced by standards track documents must be fully
>registered and documented."

Good point.  An IESG addition to this (approximate) effect was added to the 
email header field registration document [1] (and the permanent 
registrations of old standard fields should be published "real soon now" [2]).


3.  Registry Usage Requirements

    RFCs defining new header fields for Internet mail, HTTP, or MIME MUST
    include appropriate header registration template(s) (as given in
    Section 4.2) for all headers defined in the document in their IANA
    considerations section.  Use of the header registry MAY be mandated
    by other protocol specifications, however, in the absence of such a
    mandate use of the registry is not required.


>And then that is at a minimum. I would
>personally prefer that be extended to all RFCs (experimental,
>information, etc) and W3C standards. If both organizations think that
>registration is a Good Thing then we should stick by our guns to the
>extent possible and insist that any work done within our organizations
>require full registration and documentation.
>Just an idea....
>Michael Mealling                         Refactored Networks, LLC
>CEO & President                          1645 Old Hwy 41
>Office: +1-678-581-9656                  Suite 112, Box 138
>Cell: +1-678-640-6884                    Kennesaw, GA 30152

Graham Klyne
For email:

Received on Tuesday, 25 January 2005 16:26:27 UTC