[IPP] Fwd: Update to RFC 4395 (URI scheme registration)

[IPP] Fwd: Update to RFC 4395 (URI scheme registration)

[IPP] Fwd: Update to RFC 4395 (URI scheme registration)

Ira McDonald blueroofmusic at gmail.com
Mon Feb 17 14:11:34 UTC 2014


This document (if it proceeds quickly) may affect our IPPS URI Scheme
document in the IETF.

- Ira

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Dave Thaler <dthaler at microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 5:21 PM
Subject: [apps-discuss] New Version Notification for
To: "apps-discuss at ietf.org" <apps-discuss at ietf.org>

This draft replaces draft-ietf-iri-4395bis-irireg-04. Since the IRI
WG closed, we've gone back to it being an individual submission.
This version addresses some of the issues raised on -04 (see
draft-thaler-uri-scheme-reg-ps-01 and the discussion at last IETF) as
noted below. There are still a number of open issues for which, with
the permission and help of the appsawg chairs, I have filed issue
tracker tickets to track.

I have not filed tickets for things already addressed in this version.
These are enumerated below, and if there are disagreements on any
then we can file a ticket for it.

1) The IRI WG previously agreed that the fragment component is not
scheme-specific, and that the doc should be updated to clarify that
a scheme definition should only define the scheme-specific part.
This is now done at end of section 1.

2) Since the IRI WG was closed, I reverted most of the IRI-specific
changes from RFC 4395 that were in draft-ietf-iri-4395bis-irireg-04.
I left in text clarifying that a URI scheme name and an IRI scheme
name were the same and hence there aren't separate registries, since
apparently that was a common question on RFC 4395.

3) As noted in draft-thaler-uri-scheme-reg-ps and in my presentation
at last IETF, the IRI WG previously agreed that the 4-week mailing
list review was optional for Provisional. RFC 4395 was ambiguous as
to optional vs mandatory. Updated text in section 7.2 to make it
explicit that it is only mandatory for Permanent.

4) As noted in draft-thaler-uri-scheme-reg-ps and in my presentation
at last IETF, RFC 4395's convention for private namespaces (i.e.,
converting "." to "-" in scheme names based on a domain name)
causes conflicts. Updated example to use "." instead of "-" to
reduce collisions. And open ticket #17 covers the rest of the
conflict problem.

5) Combined the Permanent, Provisional, and Historical URI Scheme
sub-registries into one URI Scheme registry with a status column.
This is done to make it easier to prevent duplicates and see
existing conventions, as well as to support the "Pending Review"
temporary state added in draft-ietf-iri-4395bis-irireg.


-----Original Message-----
From: internet-drafts at ietf.org [mailto:internet-drafts at ietf.org]
Sent: Friday, February 14, 2014 12:13 PM
To: Larry Masinter; Dave Thaler; Ted Hardie; Dave Thaler; Larry Masinter;
Ted Hardie; Tony Hansen; Tony Hansen
Subject: New Version Notification for

A new version of I-D, draft-thaler-appsawg-uri-scheme-reg-00.txt
has been successfully submitted by Dave Thaler and posted to the IETF

Name:           draft-thaler-appsawg-uri-scheme-reg
Revision:       00
Title:          Guidelines and Registration Procedures for New URI Schemes
Document date:  2014-02-14
Group:          Individual Submission
Pages:          18

   This document updates the guidelines and recommendations, as well as
   the IANA registration processes, for the definition of Uniform
   Resource Identifier (URI) schemes.  It obsoletes RFC 4395.

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at

The IETF Secretariat

apps-discuss mailing list
apps-discuss at ietf.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.pwg.org/pipermail/ipp/attachments/20140217/af5bb302/attachment.html>

More information about the ipp mailing list