Re: [apps-discuss] Call for Adoption: draft-kerwin-file-scheme

[Graham Klyne <[e-mail]>]

On 01/01/2015 06:37, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> The BCP for registering schemes appears not to require an RFC, only Expert
> Review.

<reviewer hat on>

As reviewer, I look for significant support or implementation if the scheme is 
destined for permanent registration.

Specifically, from https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4395#section-2:

    New URI schemes SHOULD have clear utility
    to the broad Internet community, beyond that available with already
    registered URI schemes.

    ... a URI
    scheme definition itself MUST be clear as to how it is expected to
    function.

In practice, I would take publication as an IETF-stream RFC, especially 
standards-track, as providing a strong indication that a level of consensus or 
usage exists.  Without that, I expect to have other evidence of widespread 
support/use.

In the past, I have pushed back against permanent registrations from the 
independent stream, as it lacks the same level of community support or 
conviction.  I would prefer to see an individual (non-WG) IETF-stream 
submission.  But in all this, I'm open to discussion, especially with IESG 
members who may be able to garner evidence of support that I'm not seeing.

In the case of file:, I have no doubt that the scheme is both widely supported 
and widely used.  The problems with the current specification have been widely 
discussed, over a long period.  But I would have reservations about permanent 
registration if there is no clear community consensus about how the scheme may 
be used or is expected to function.

</off>

#g
--


> On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 8:51 PM, Matthew Kerwin <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
>> On 21 December 2014 at 05:55, Larry Masinter <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>>> This opens a call for adoption for draft-kerwin-file-scheme, to be
>>> processed by APPSAWG.
>>>
>>> I don't think apps area should take up kerwin-file-scheme as an
>>> independent work item, not because the work isn't important but because
>>> apps-discuss is too congested to manage the discussion (no responses to my
>>> Dec 9 comments
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/msg13462.html
>>> ). In general, APPSAWG shouldn't take up URL-scheme permanent
>>> registrations? Or should it? This should be addressed in the scheme
>>> registration BCP.
>>>
>>>
>> Sorry for not responding sooner, I've been a bit overwhelmed with real
>> life, and there's quite a back-log of comments and messages to aggregate
>> and process.
>>
>> Regarding adoption of URL schemes by this WG, what alternatives would you
>> propose? I could instead try to make it an individual submission, but this
>> particular scheme has a lot of political and emotional history, and there
>> seems to be more and more work involved with developing the spec, so I'd
>> rather have much more buy-in through the whole process (such as you get
>> from a working group). I don't think it's big enough to warrant spinning up
>> its own WG, and I'm not aware of any others that would be more appropriate
>> than here.
>>
>
> The BCP for registering schemes appears not to require an RFC, only Expert
> Review.
>
> The guideline I've had in mind both for schemes and media types is this: If
> there's a lot of development work to be done on the format of what's to be
> registered, or if Standards Track status seems to be worthwhile or even
> necessary, then a working group (this one or a new one) makes sense.  On
> the other hand, if it's mostly just documenting and then registering
> something already quite well understood, I think the independent stream is
> worth considering.  Even better: If the required documentation could simply
> be included in the registration template, then just do that, and then
> there's no need to produce an RFC through any stream.
>
> An individual submission requires AD sponsorship, and I don't think this
> has been shopped to any ADs yet (has it?).
>
> All that said, one of the earlier threads about this work certainly made me
> think there's a non-trivial number of issues that need attention before
> this one could be done right, so working group attention (this or a new
> one) is warranted.  If we want to spin off a WG for it, that's for Barry to
> consider (anyone feel like writing a charter?).
>
> All THAT said, Larry's earlier message (URI cited above) does still need a
> reply, I believe.  If this draft does get adopted, that will be necessary
> before we can progress the document.
>
> -MSK
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> apps-discuss mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
>