[apps-discuss] uri-scheme-reg rules for updating a permanent scheme
Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com> Fri, 02 January 2015 02:46 UTC
Return-Path: <masinter@adobe.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D0131A86DE for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Jan 2015 18:46:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RGg7Anxvcvx5 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Jan 2015 18:46:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from na01-bn1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bn1bon0650.outbound.protection.outlook.com [IPv6:2a01:111:f400:fc10::1:650]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 478421A8546 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 1 Jan 2015 18:46:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from DM2PR0201MB0960.namprd02.prod.outlook.com (25.160.216.28) by DM2PR0201MB0960.namprd02.prod.outlook.com (25.160.216.28) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.49.12; Fri, 2 Jan 2015 02:46:09 +0000
Received: from DM2PR0201MB0960.namprd02.prod.outlook.com ([25.160.216.28]) by DM2PR0201MB0960.namprd02.prod.outlook.com ([25.160.216.28]) with mapi id 15.01.0049.002; Fri, 2 Jan 2015 02:46:09 +0000
From: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
To: IETF Apps Discuss <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: uri-scheme-reg rules for updating a permanent scheme
Thread-Index: AdAmMYDqvV5bH5t4Q8KLR84gqoNEnQ==
Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2015 02:46:08 +0000
Message-ID: <DM2PR0201MB0960CC39B816B11D62385F6DC35D0@DM2PR0201MB0960.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [2601:9:8380:992:2ccd:f6f9:7143:5215]
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=masinter@adobe.com;
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:DM2PR0201MB0960;
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:;
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:DM2PR0201MB0960;
x-forefront-prvs: 0444EB1997
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(6009001)(199003)(189002)(33656002)(101416001)(2656002)(110136001)(230783001)(99396003)(19580395003)(50986999)(54356999)(54206007)(4396001)(31966008)(46102003)(107886001)(21056001)(87936001)(99286002)(92566001)(54606007)(120916001)(64706001)(74316001)(68736005)(450100001)(62966003)(2900100001)(97736003)(20776003)(40100003)(122556002)(77156002)(102836002)(229853001)(107046002)(86362001)(15975445007)(76576001)(106356001)(105586002)(3826002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:DM2PR0201MB0960; H:DM2PR0201MB0960.namprd02.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; MLV:sfv; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: adobe.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: adobe.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 02 Jan 2015 02:46:08.3123 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: fa7b1b5a-7b34-4387-94ae-d2c178decee1
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DM2PR0201MB0960
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/apps-discuss/3gKWCLI41fjCRGCfe5dgpNkGADc
Subject: [apps-discuss] uri-scheme-reg rules for updating a permanent scheme
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2015 02:46:35 -0000
In talking about kerwin-file-scheme, it was claimed: > The BCP for registering schemes appears not to require an RFC, only Expert Review. but http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-appsawg-uri-scheme-reg-03#section-7.3 Registrations can be updated in the registry by the same mechanism as required for an initial registration. In cases where the original definition of the scheme is contained in an IESG-approved document, update of the specification also requires IESG approval. IESG approval (usually) happens by approval of something for publication as an RFC. Should this be more explicit? How else could someone ask for IESG approval? Shouldn't there be guidelines for updates to a registration that talks about review against widely deployed implementations? For example, requirements that updates SHOULD * significantly improve the match with deployed implementations, and/or * note, as an interoperability consideration, wide deployments that don't match, and * have evidence of review by those responsible for with updates to current implementations, with confidence that they will conform to the new spec. Larry -- http://larry.masinter.net
- [apps-discuss] uri-scheme-reg rules for updating … Larry Masinter
- Re: [apps-discuss] uri-scheme-reg rules for updat… Alexey Melnikov