Re: [apps-discuss] FW: New Version Notification - draft-ietf-appsawg-uri-scheme-reg-05.txt

[Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail]>]

On 27/03/2015 19:29, Barry Leiba wrote:
>> I will send email responses to the feedback received with what we did.
>> I may not get those out today though. But I think the doc should be
>> ready for the IESG telechat.
> Thanks.  I've issued the ballot; I'll wait to change the state until I
> hear that your co-authors & shepherd are OK with it.
This is almost perfect :-).

A couple of comments:

1) The last paragraph in Section 3.6  (Internationalization and 
Character Encoding)  now reads (the last sentence is new):

    All percent-encoded variants are automatically included by definition
    for any character given in an IRI production.  This means that if you
    want to restrict the URI percent-encoded forms in some way, you must
    restrict the Unicode forms that would lead to them.  In most cases,
    it is advisable to define the actual characters allowed in an IRI
    production, to allow the 'pct-encoded' definition from Section 2.1 of
    [RFC3986] at the same places, and to add prose that limits percent-
    escapes to those that can be created by converting valid character
    sequences to percent-encoding via UTF-8.


The last part of the sentence doesn't read well (and I can't understand 
exactly what is it trying to do):

    and to add prose that limits percent-
    escapes to those that can be created by converting valid UTF-8
    character sequences to their percent-encoding.


Dave, is this what you intended?

2) Regarding my earlier disagreement about text suggested by Graham:

3.  Requirements for Permanent Scheme Definitions

  This section gives considerations for new schemes. Meeting these
  guidelines is REQUIRED for permanent scheme registration.
  Permanent status is appropriate for, but not limited to,
  use in standards. For URI schemes defined or normatively
  referenced by IETF Standards-Track documents, Permanent registration 
status is REQUIRED.

He added "or normatively referenced" which now appears in the draft.

Here is a real world example of a problem with this text. SIDR WG 
decided to use rsync protocol, they needed to use rsync URIs. rsync URIs 
are currently provisional, defined in an Informational RFC.  So this 
text is basically saying that under the new rule the registration have 
to be upgraded to Permanent, allowing the expert reviewer (no disrespect 
to Graham or his future replacement) to be a person that blocks 
consensus of a WG to use a particular technology. I find this to be 
problematic.

Do people agree that this is problematic?