RE: URI scheme uniqueness

I don't object to this being an issue, and I'm happy to see suggestions for
new wording.  However, I think we're missing something here.  You've already
pointed out that using an IETF-registered schema doesn't guarantee
uniqueness which is true, but the wording below suggests that you can't have
uniqueness without having IETF registration. Rather, IETF registration and
uniqueness are completely independent qualities.
 
As a counter-example, consider if you invented the schema "greenbytes:", in
which you might find a URI like
"greenbytes:www.greenbytes.com:1234-5678-9012:3365008, where the first part
is the schema name, the second part is a domain name, the third part is a
network card ID, and the fourth part is a non-reusable sequence number.
This schema has the quality of allowing globally unique URIs to be selected
without being IETF registered.
 
Lisa

-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Julian Reschke
Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 1:55 PM
To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Subject: RE: URI scheme uniqueness 


Summarizing...
 
I think I've collected enough evidence (people that indeed thought that they
can achieve global uniqueness without using an IETF-registered scheme) that
this should at least be added to the RFC2518 issues list :-)
 
Julian
 

--
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de <http://www.greenbytes.de/>
-- tel:+492512807760 

-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On
Behalf Of Elias Sinderson
Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 7:47 PM
To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Subject: Re: URI scheme uniqueness 



[...]

<Elias Sinderson> 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."

    

<Julian Reschke> That's plain and simply wrong. The only way is to use an
URI scheme that

*both* is IETF-registered and meets the uniqueness criterium.

<Elias Sinderson> Goodness, you are correct, mea culpa - I see your point
now.


<Elias Sinderson> This language seems specific enough to be unambiguous
while flexible enough to allow for other mechanisms to ensure uniqueness.
The drawback of not [...]

    

<Julian Reschke> See, this kind of proves that the spec needs to be
enhanced. You and others seem to read it as a license to come up with
"private" URI schemes, which is plainly wrong and breaks the uniqueness
requirements. Therefore the text

should be clarified.

<Elias Sinderson> Yes, I agree, the current text allows for a looser
interpretation than is desired - consider me in favor of modifying the
current wording.


Cheers,
Elias