Re: [dispatch] [Last-Call] Genart last call review of draft-hardie-dispatch-rfc3405-update-03

[Julian Reschke <[e-mail]>]

Am 03.09.2020 um 12:00 schrieb Timothy Mcsweeney:
> Hi Brian,
>  >Re-assuming my hat as a Gen-ART reviewer for this draft, I think that
> this
>  >change would be a mistake, as it no longer explicitly informs the reader
>  >what has been changed in RFC 3405.
>  >If we really want to be precise, I suggest:
>  >2. Updated Requirements
>  >This document removes the normative requirement from section 3.1.1
>  >of RFC 3405 for registrations in URI.ARPA to be from the IETF URI Tree.
>  >All registrations in URI.ARPA MUST now be for schemes which are
>  >permanent registrations, as they are described in BCP 35.
> In the interest of brevity, we probably don't really need that second
> sentence.  And it might help to open things up a bit.
> Tim

So even if that sentence was gone, you still wouldn't be able to
register something that has not been registered as a URI scheme, because
of <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3405#section-3> saying "The creation
of a given URI scheme or URN namespace id (NID) follows the appropriate
registration documents for those spaces."   (Or am I missing something?).

How would that help you for your use case?

Best regards, Julian