Re: [apps-discuss] Retroactive application of draft-ietf-appsawg-uri-scheme-reg - comprehensive review

[Keith Moore <[e-mail]>]

I might comment on the rest of John's note later, but for now I'll just 
limit my response to this portion:

On 04/18/2015 08:28 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
> (1) The community approved RFCs 2141 and 3406 as a Proposed
> Standardsd and BCP, respectively.  RFC 1737 provides useful
> information and context, but it is an Informational document and
> has never been seriously claimed to represent community
> consensus.   I note that such a document would not be allowed to
> have "Requirements" in its title today.  It is interesting the
> the title of RFC 1736 includes "Recommendations", not
> "Requirements".

RFC 1737 was approved at a time that BCPs didn't yet exist.   Since it's 
not a protocol document, it wouldn't have been suitable for 
standards-track, and there wasn't any other way that the IESG could 
indicate community approval.   Informational was the only label that 
could be given to it.   So one can't really derive much significance 
from the lack of a BCP label.

It might not represent community-wide consensus at the time.  But to the 
best of my recollection it does represent a consensus of the URN WG.

Keith