[IPP] Fwd: IETF Proposed URI Scheme Registration Process Changes

[IPP] Fwd: IETF Proposed URI Scheme Registration Process Changes

[IPP] Fwd: IETF Proposed URI Scheme Registration Process Changes

Ira McDonald blueroofmusic at gmail.com
Thu Jul 3 19:52:46 UTC 2014


Hi,

FYI.

I don't believe these have any impact on the "ipps" URI scheme.

Cheers,
- Ira


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Liaison Statement Management Tool <lsmt at ietf.org>
Date: Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 1:43 PM
Subject: [apps-discuss] New Liaison Statement, "Proposed URI Scheme
Registration Process Changes"
To: mnot at mnot.net
Cc: apps-discuss at ietf.org, Pete Resnick <presnick at qti.qualcomm.com>, Mark
Nottingham <mnot at mnot.net>, Barry Leiba <barryleiba at computer.org>


Title: Proposed URI Scheme Registration Process Changes
Submission Date: 2014-07-02
URL of the IETF Web page: http://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1340/

From: Applications Area Working Group (Murray Kucherawy <superuser at gmail.com
>)
To: W3C (mnot at mnot.net)
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot at mnot.net>,Murray Kucherawy
<superuser at gmail.com>,Salvatore
Loreto <Salvatore.Loreto at ericsson.com>,Pete Resnick <
presnick at qti.qualcomm.com>,Barry Leiba <barryleiba at computer.org>,
apps-discuss at ietf.org
Response Contact: superuser at gmail.com
Technical Contact: dthaler at microsoft.com
Purpose: For information

Body: W3C,

The IETF is considering some changes to the URI scheme registration process
to address problems documented in
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-appsawg-uri-scheme-reg-00.

In addition, the IETF APPSAWG discussed whether to allow for registering
scheme name prefixes (to reserve them for a specific purpose or
organization), and has tentatively decided to not make any changes in this
regard.

The changes being considered notably include the following:

1) Lowering the bar for Provisional (but not Permanent) allocation to be
First-Come-First-Served without requiring Expert Review, since today this
seems to be a disincentive for many to register and seems to result in
using Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/URI_scheme) or
http://www.w3.org/wiki/UriSchemes to claim or look up scheme names instead
of the IANA registry.

2) Reserving the use of dots in new scheme names to indicate that they are
constructed from a domain name suffix (as already allowed in RFC 4395).
This avoids conflicts such as could occur today were ".iris" or ".soap"
allocated as gTLDs for instance.

Please let us know if there are concerns with these changes that the IETF
needs to take into account.

M. Kucherawy
Co-chair, Applications Area Working Group
Attachments:

No document has been attached

_______________________________________________
apps-discuss mailing list
apps-discuss at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.pwg.org/pipermail/ipp/attachments/20140703/c9494b24/attachment.html>


More information about the ipp mailing list