[apps-discuss] [Errata Verified] RFC7595 (4420)
RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Fri, 17 July 2015 21:03 UTC
Return-Path: <wwwrun@rfc-editor.org>
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 33FF91A212D; Fri, 17 Jul 2015 14:03:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.912
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.912 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 cDXUJJ95ceoz; Fri, 17 Jul 2015 14:03:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E41131A1EFE; Fri, 17 Jul 2015 14:03:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id D5CB7180452; Fri, 17 Jul 2015 13:59:41 -0700 (PDT)
To: gk-ietf@ninebynine.org, dthaler@microsoft.com, tony+urireg@maillennium.att.com, ted.ietf@gmail.com
X-PHP-Originating-Script: 1005:errata_mail_lib.php
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Message-Id: <20150717205941.D5CB7180452@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2015 13:59:41 -0700
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/apps-discuss/DruxKjOgFzDNs7wZqZc3S23YVH0>
Cc: barryleiba@computer.org, iesg@ietf.org, apps-discuss@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Subject: [apps-discuss] [Errata Verified] RFC7595 (4420)
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 17 Jul 2015 21:03:23 -0000
The following errata report has been verified 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 -------------------------------------- Status: Verified Type: Technical Reported by: Graham Klyne <gk-ietf@ninebynine.org> Date Reported: 2015-07-17 Verified by: Barry Leiba (IESG) 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 -------------------------------------- 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