URI scheme uniqueness (was Re: rfc2518-bis-04 issues (part 2))

Julian Reschke wrote:

>>><Julian Reschke> 02-C05 Section 6.3, p3
>>>Replace
>>>"However resources are free to return any URI scheme so long as it meets the
>>>      
>>>
>>>uniqueness requirements."
>>>by
>>>"However servers are free to use any IETF-registered URI scheme so long as
>>>      
>>>
>>>it meets the uniqueness requirements."
>>>(If it's not IETF-registered, I don't see how it can possibly meet the
>>>uniqueness criterium).
>>>      
>>>
>><Jason Crawford> I'd vote to leave the text as it is.
>>    
>>
><Julian Reschke> Again, please help me understand...:
>
>1) Are you suggesting that to for a scheme to be IETF-registered is not a
>requirement? In which case I'll argue that by definition there can't be any
>uniquess guarantee otherwise.
>
<Elias Sinderson> It's a given that any IETF-registered URI scheme will 
meet the stated uniqueness requirements. I don't believe that it is the 
only way to do so, however. For example, private intranets may utilize 
their own, homegrown system to guarantee uniquenes. It's also entirely 
possible that, in the distant future, there may be alternative means to 
accomplish this on the public internet. Perhaps something along the 
lines of the following would be acceptable?

"...are free to use any URI scheme so long as it meets the stated 
uniqueness requirements. One way to accomplish this is to use 
IETF-registered URI schemes."

This language seems specific enough to be unambiguous while flexible 
enough to allow for other mechanisms to ensure uniqueness. The drawback 
of not taking a firmer position on this is that it opens the possibility 
that someone will implement some half-baked idea and it won't meet the 
necessary requirements...


Cheers,
Elias