Re: [apps-discuss] [Uri-review] Provisional URI registrations
Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org> Tue, 23 November 2010 14:49 UTC
Return-Path: <GK@ninebynine.org>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46BE83A6936; Tue, 23 Nov 2010 06:49:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.103
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.103 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.496, BAYES_00=-2.599, DATE_IN_PAST_12_24=0.992, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id L534dhF2MplR; Tue, 23 Nov 2010 06:49:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from relay5.mail.ox.ac.uk (relay5.mail.ox.ac.uk [163.1.2.163]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CA4828C113; Tue, 23 Nov 2010 06:49:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp0.mail.ox.ac.uk ([129.67.1.205]) by relay5.mail.ox.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <GK@ninebynine.org>) id 1PKuCq-0001Ft-HX; Tue, 23 Nov 2010 14:50:52 +0000
Received: from gklyne.plus.com ([80.229.154.156] helo=Eskarina.local) by smtp0.mail.ox.ac.uk with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <GK@ninebynine.org>) id 1PKuCp-0006xA-3D; Tue, 23 Nov 2010 14:50:52 +0000
Message-ID: <4CEAF2F0.3060001@ninebynine.org>
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 22:47:12 +0000
From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (Macintosh/20100228)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <evnikita2@gmail.com>
References: <A232FF7C06EE5B1C0F886130@PST.JCK.COM> <4CE99C5D.9040601@ninebynine.org> <4CEA7D15.6000801@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <4CEA7D15.6000801@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Oxford-Username: zool0635
Cc: uri-review@ietf.org, apps-discuss@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] [Uri-review] Provisional URI registrations
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 14:49:58 -0000
Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote: > 22.11.2010 0:25, Graham Klyne wrote: >> We have "permanent", "provisional" and "historical" registration >> classes for URI schemes. For practical purposes, I think the >> "provisional" registry serves the same role as the "reserved" one you >> suggest [1]. I think the additional bureaucracy incurred to create a >> new registry class is not justified by practical benefit. It's easy >> enough to add some commentary to the registration template > I can't agree with that. 'Provisional' means > 'not to be used as not specified' Well, that's not what I read in RFC4395 regarding "provisional": [[ Within that namespace, there are values that are approved as meeting a set of criteria for URI schemes. Other scheme names may also be registered provisionally, without necessarily meeting those criteria. ]] -- http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4395#section-1 [[ o encourage registration by setting a low barrier for provisional registrations. ]] -- (ibid) My interpretation of "reserved" was based on my reading of the criteria outlined in John Klensin's email to which I was responding. And my response clearly stated "for practical purposes", which is not the same as claiming the words mean the same thing. That is, for practical purposes, I don't think that having a "reserved" category adds any value to the process. Further, I don't think that allowing registration without some level of specification, or registration of a scheme that is "not to be used now" would serve any useful purpose. The main point of provisional registration here is to allow developers to experiment with a tentatively specified URI scheme without meeting all of the requirements for permanent registration, while allowing that permanent registration may follow if the experiments show value, and to provide a place where some information can be found about any registered scheme that might show up in the wild. #g --
- [apps-discuss] Provisional URI registrations (was… John C Klensin
- Re: [apps-discuss] Provisional URI registrations Graham Klyne
- Re: [apps-discuss] Provisional URI registrations Martin J. Dürst
- Re: [apps-discuss] Provisional URI registrations John C Klensin
- Re: [apps-discuss] Provisional URI registrations Martin J. Dürst
- Re: [apps-discuss] Provisional URI registrations Graham Klyne
- Re: [apps-discuss] [Uri-review] Provisional URI r… Mykyta Yevstifeyev
- Re: [apps-discuss] [Uri-review] Provisional URI r… Graham Klyne