- From: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
- Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 14:03:56 -0800
- To: "'Dan Connolly'" <connolly@w3.org>, "'Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress'" <rden@loc.gov>
- Cc: uri@w3.org
The new process has been approved, but the approval announcement hasn't been sent. https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=1239 0&rfc_flag=0 > I thought URI schemes had to be standards-track... but 3.2 > The IETF Tree of http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2717.txt seems to say that the IESG can > approve a scheme by agreeing to publish an informational RFC. 2717 is being replaced, and the requirements are even less stringent, now. If you want to make normative reference to a URI scheme in some other standards track document, then the URI scheme definition should also be standards track. But otherwise there's not a requirement, even for there to be an RFC. > I can't tell if the new guidelines introduces new subtleties or not. Yes, they do. > > If so, when (roughly) might http://www.iana.org/assignments/uri-schemes be > > updated to reflect this? Since the registry itself is changing (establishment of the 'provisional' and 'permanent' registries), I would imagine individual items might take a little longer to process. Just my guess, though. Larry
Received on Tuesday, 15 November 2005 22:03:56 UTC