[apps-discuss] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7595 (4420)

RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Fri, 17 July 2015 20:48 UTC

To: dthaler@microsoft.com, tony+urireg@maillennium.att.com, ted.ietf@gmail.com, ben@nostrum.com, alissa@cooperw.in, barryleiba@computer.org, superuser@gmail.com, alexey.melnikov@isode.com
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Message-Id: <20150717204508.5A43A180452@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2015 13:45:08 -0700
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/apps-discuss/1-4DS2YV70VJCAQgcZ63AM71WCk>
Cc: gk-ietf@ninebynine.org, apps-discuss@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Subject: [apps-discuss] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7595 (4420)
Precedence: list

The following errata report has been submitted for RFC7595,
"Guidelines and Registration Procedures for URI Schemes".

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=7595&eid=4420

--------------------------------------
Type: Technical
Reported by: Graham Klyne <gk-ietf@ninebynine.org>

Section: 4

Original Text
-------------
o If no permanent, citable specification for the scheme definition
is included, credible reasons for not providing it SHOULD be
given.

o The scheme definition SHOULD include clear security considerations
(Section 3.7) or explain why a full security analysis is not
available (e.g., in a third-party scheme registration).

o If the scheme definition does not meet the guidelines laid out in
Section 3, the differences and reasons SHOULD be noted.

Corrected Text
--------------
Submitters are also encouraged to provide the following information as
appropriate:

o If no permanent, citable specification for the scheme definition
is included, credible reasons for not providing it.

o Clear security considerations (cf. Section 3.7), or an explanation
of why a security analysis is not available (e.g., in a third-
party scheme registration).

o A note of and reasons for any deviations from the guidelines for
permanent registrations laid out in Section 3.

Notes
-----
The original text states a number of normative requirements on provisional registration of URI schemes, but the procedure for these ("first come first served") cannot reasonably be expected to check that they are satisfied. The revision proposed here changes the text to encourage submitters to provide this information, without giving it force of a normative requirement.

For more details, see:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/apps-discuss/wsEAsWC1viE8YL1WfGkaW_NzMpg

The document editor has agreed the original text does not reflect the intent of the registration procedure:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/apps-discuss/uPb33G9duZlrwNcdCFUJmvcPLgk

Instructions:
-------------
This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please
use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or
rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party (IESG)
can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary.

--------------------------------------
RFC7595 (draft-ietf-appsawg-uri-scheme-reg-06)
--------------------------------------
Title : Guidelines and Registration Procedures for URI Schemes
Publication Date : June 2015
Author(s) : D. Thaler, Ed., T. Hansen, T. Hardie
Category : BEST CURRENT PRACTICE
Source : Applications Area Working Group
Area : Applications and Real-Time
Stream : IETF
Verifying Party : IESG

[apps-discuss] [Errata Verified] RFC7595 (4420) RFC Errata System
[apps-discuss] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC759… RFC Errata System