[apps-discuss] draft-ietf-appsawg-about-uri-scheme

["Mykyta Yevstifeyev (М. Євстіфеєв)" <[e-mail]>]

Hello,

 From minutes:

> 09:05 draft-ietf-appsawg-about-uri-scheme (chairs)
>
> Room consensus for registry to be FCFS with minimal doc via template.

That is what the WG reached at the previous meeting and what is not 
there currently is in the doc.  Before it became a WG item, the authors, 
ADs and me did have a discussion on this point, but there was no 
agreement - that's why it became WG item.  What I actually think is that 
FCFS should be appropriate, but there is no point of adding a registry 
entry given no specification available whereas the MUST restriction is 
imposed.  Recently Barry has sent me the following proposal: to have the 
policy FCFS but make specification reference mandatory for 
registration.  Therefore, if there is nobody who objects, I may change 
the following text in IANA Considerations:

OLD:

>     The registration policy for new entries is "Specification Required",
>     as defined in RFC 5226 [RFC5226].  Additionally, the following
>     template MUST be provided by the registrant:

NEW:

>     The registration policy for new entries is "First Come First Served",
>     as defined in RFC 5226 [RFC5226].  Additionally, the following
>     template MUST be provided by the registrant:

OLD:

>     o Published specifications:  A reference to the published
>       specification for the registered token.

NEW:

>     o Published specifications:  A reference to the stable specification
>       MUST be provided.  The specification SHALL cover what the SPU
>       with the token being registered ought to resolve to, and SHOULD
>       cover other issues related to SPU usage.

Any comments are welcome.

Mykyta Yevstifeyev