Re: [APPS-REVIEW] Review of draft-merrick-jms-uri-05

[Mark Baker <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 11:05 PM, Harald Alvestrand
<[e-mail]> wrote:
> Thanks - those words help.
> The important point is that use of the URI depends on a shared context, and
> that context cannot be identified from the URI. Indeed, there may be valid
> cases where the same URI is resolvable in two different contexts, with two
> different results.
>
> That leaves me sad, because it is exactly opposite to what the "U" in "URI"
> sometimes stood for,

Me too 8-(

IMO this registration should be provisional, not permanent, because it
doesn't meet the requirements of sec 2.1 of RFC 4395;

   The use and deployment of new URI schemes in the Internet
   infrastructure is costly; some parts of URI processing may be
   scheme-dependent, and deployed software already processes URIs of
   well-known schemes.  Introducing a new URI scheme may require
   additional software, not only for client software and user agents but
   also in additional parts of the network infrastructure (gateways,
   proxies, caches) [11].  URI schemes constitute a single, global
   namespace; it is desirable to avoid contention over use of short,
   mnemonic scheme names.  For these reasons, the unbounded registration
   of new schemes is harmful.  New URI schemes SHOULD have clear utility
   to the broad Internet community, beyond that available with already
   registered URI schemes.

Mark.