Re: [apps-discuss] Encouraging third party registrations

Graham Klyne <> Tue, 15 November 2011 08:32 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E2C121F8D92 for <>; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 00:32:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.412
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.412 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.112, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4i6o80z3S3A3 for <>; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 00:32:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A27E21F8D74 for <>; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 00:32:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([]) by with esmtp (Exim 4.75) (envelope-from <>) id 1RQEQv-0006ql-A0; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 08:31:57 +0000
Received: from ([] helo=Eskarina.local) by with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <>) id 1RQEQu-00056s-8D; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 08:31:56 +0000
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 08:20:22 +0000
From: Graham Klyne <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; rv:6.0) Gecko/20110812 Thunderbird/6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "\"Martin J. Dürst\"" <>
References: <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Oxford-Username: zool0635
Cc: Roy Fielding <>, Ned Freed <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Encouraging third party registrations
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 08:32:09 -0000

On 15/11/2011 01:43, "Martin J. Dürst" wrote:
>>> > ENCOURAGE the public to register any names that they have seen in
>>> > deployed software. (same for URI schemes)
>>> I think third-party registration is indeed something we should encourage
>>> more.
>> How do you propose we do that?
> It seems that currently, people don't even know that it is possible. So the
> first step is to make this more known. On another list, you write: "We have
> always allowed registrations by any interested party." That's apparently true,
> but is it done because nowhere in RFC 4288 it says it's not possible? Then
> making it explicit in draft-freed-media-type-regs should help.


I think a wiki-FAQ linked from each registry page could go a long way to help.

Make registration procedures / contacts / requirements / guidelines available in 
a user-friendly format (NOT just an RFC) linked from the registry page. E.g., 
give each registry some wiki space linked from its registry page.

If we want a simple enhancement to smooth the path of registration, I think this 
is something we could do now which could have a significant effect, without 
updating any RFCs, etc.  As reviewer for URIs and Header fields, I'd be happy to 
put up some initial content for those.  Maybe a common list of FAQs to get this 
started; e.g.

q. Who can register a <foo>?

q. What are the requirements for registering a <foo>?

q. Where should I send my request to register <foo>?

q. What happens next?

q. Who should I contact if I'm not happy with a response to my request?

q. Who has the final say about any registration request?

q. What do I do if I think there is an error in a registration?

q. How do I update a registration?

q. [How] can I add a comment to a registration?

(I've added this suggestion to