Re: [apps-discuss] New Version Notification for draft-thaler-appsawg-uri-scheme-reg-00.txt

Dave,

I read through the draft and I was hoping to find wording that would
discourage the creation of URI schemes similar to those that have been
created in the Windows Phone OS.  Schemes like
"Explorer.AssocActionId.BurnSelection",
"Explorer.AssocActionId.EraseDisc", "Explorer.AssocActionId.EraseDisc"
seem to be far from ideal scheme names.  [1]

Did I skip over the guidance that would prevent schemes like these or
is the hope that by encouraging registration, this type of abomination
could be avoided?

Regards,

Darrel

[1] http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windowsphone/develop/jj207065(v=vs.105).aspx

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