attachment
<div dir="ltr"><div>Hi,<br><br></div><div>This document (if it proceeds quickly) may affect our IPPS URI Scheme<br></div><div>document in the IETF.<br><br></div><div>Cheers,<br></div><div><div><div><div>- Ira<br></div><div dir="ltr">
<div style="display:inline"></div><div style="display:inline"></div><div style="display:inline"></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div></div></div>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">---------- Forwarded message ----------<br>From: <b class="gmail_sendername">Dave Thaler</b> <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:dthaler@microsoft.com">dthaler@microsoft.com</a>></span><br>
Date: Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 5:21 PM<br>Subject: [apps-discuss] New Version Notification for draft-thaler-appsawg-uri-scheme-reg-00.txt<br>To: "<a href="mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org">apps-discuss@ietf.org</a>" <<a href="mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org">apps-discuss@ietf.org</a>><br>
<br><br>This draft replaces draft-ietf-iri-4395bis-irireg-04. Since the IRI<br>
WG closed, we've gone back to it being an individual submission.<br>
This version addresses some of the issues raised on -04 (see<br>
draft-thaler-uri-scheme-reg-ps-01 and the discussion at last IETF) as<br>
noted below. There are still a number of open issues for which, with<br>
the permission and help of the appsawg chairs, I have filed issue<br>
tracker tickets to track.<br>
<br>
I have not filed tickets for things already addressed in this version.<br>
These are enumerated below, and if there are disagreements on any<br>
then we can file a ticket for it.<br>
<br>
1) The IRI WG previously agreed that the fragment component is not<br>
scheme-specific, and that the doc should be updated to clarify that<br>
a scheme definition should only define the scheme-specific part.<br>
This is now done at end of section 1.<br>
<br>
2) Since the IRI WG was closed, I reverted most of the IRI-specific<br>
changes from RFC 4395 that were in draft-ietf-iri-4395bis-irireg-04.<br>
I left in text clarifying that a URI scheme name and an IRI scheme<br>
name were the same and hence there aren't separate registries, since<br>
apparently that was a common question on RFC 4395.<br>
<br>
3) As noted in draft-thaler-uri-scheme-reg-ps and in my presentation<br>
at last IETF, the IRI WG previously agreed that the 4-week mailing<br>
list review was optional for Provisional. RFC 4395 was ambiguous as<br>
to optional vs mandatory. Updated text in section 7.2 to make it<br>
explicit that it is only mandatory for Permanent.<br>
<br>
4) As noted in draft-thaler-uri-scheme-reg-ps and in my presentation<br>
at last IETF, RFC 4395's convention for private namespaces (i.e.,<br>
converting "." to "-" in scheme names based on a domain name)<br>
causes conflicts. Updated example to use "." instead of "-" to<br>
reduce collisions. And open ticket #17 covers the rest of the<br>
conflict problem.<br>
<br>
5) Combined the Permanent, Provisional, and Historical URI Scheme<br>
sub-registries into one URI Scheme registry with a status column.<br>
This is done to make it easier to prevent duplicates and see<br>
existing conventions, as well as to support the "Pending Review"<br>
temporary state added in draft-ietf-iri-4395bis-irireg.<br>
<br>
-Dave<br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: <a href="mailto:internet-drafts@ietf.org">internet-drafts@ietf.org</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:internet-drafts@ietf.org">internet-drafts@ietf.org</a>]<br>
Sent: Friday, February 14, 2014 12:13 PM<br>
To: Larry Masinter; Dave Thaler; Ted Hardie; Dave Thaler; Larry Masinter; Ted Hardie; Tony Hansen; Tony Hansen<br>
Subject: New Version Notification for draft-thaler-appsawg-uri-scheme-reg-00.txt<br>
<br>
<br>
A new version of I-D, draft-thaler-appsawg-uri-scheme-reg-00.txt<br>
has been successfully submitted by Dave Thaler and posted to the IETF repository.<br>
<br>
Name: draft-thaler-appsawg-uri-scheme-reg<br>
Revision: 00<br>
Title: Guidelines and Registration Procedures for New URI Schemes<br>
Document date: 2014-02-14<br>
Group: Individual Submission<br>
Pages: 18<br>
URL: <a href="http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-thaler-appsawg-uri-scheme-reg-00.txt" target="_blank">http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-thaler-appsawg-uri-scheme-reg-00.txt</a><br>
Status: <a href="https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-thaler-appsawg-uri-scheme-reg/" target="_blank">https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-thaler-appsawg-uri-scheme-reg/</a><br>
Htmlized: <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-thaler-appsawg-uri-scheme-reg-00" target="_blank">http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-thaler-appsawg-uri-scheme-reg-00</a><br>
<br>
<br>
Abstract:<br>
This document updates the guidelines and recommendations, as well as<br>
the IANA registration processes, for the definition of Uniform<br>
Resource Identifier (URI) schemes. It obsoletes RFC 4395.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at <a href="http://tools.ietf.org" target="_blank">tools.ietf.org</a>.<br>
<br>
The IETF Secretariat<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
apps-discuss mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org">apps-discuss@ietf.org</a><br>
<a href="https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss" target="_blank">https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss</a><br>
</div><br></div></div></div>