Re: [dispatch] Registration of "hxxp" URI scheme

[Hugo Salgado-Hernández <[e-mail]>]

Thanks John and Mark.
Fair enough. I've asked and received the provisional registration,
with the draft as reference. In case its needed, it can be upgraded
to permanent in the future.

Hugo

On 13:33 08/05, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> I think it's worth having a registry entry if this is widespread practice, if only to prevent accidental use.
> 
> I agree that a provisional registration would do that. 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> 
> > On 6 May 2017, at 2:17 am, John Levine <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > 
> > In article <[e-mail]> you write:
> >> -=-=-=-=-=-
> >> 
> >> Dear dispatch WG.
> >> I recently realized there's no registration for the "hxxp"
> >> scheme in the IANA table. This scheme had become a de-facto
> >> standard from many years, inside the security community,
> >> to obfuscate malicious urls. I think it deserves to be
> >> registered for block and documentation matters.
> > 
> > Since the whole point of hxxp is to prevent interoperation, I don't
> > understand what problem a permanent registration would solve.  It
> > doesn't seem very likely that anyone would use those four letters to
> > mean anything else. but if you want a placeholder to prevent that, a
> > provisional FCFS registration would do the trick.
> > 
> > R's,
> > John
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > dispatch mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch
> 
> --
> Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dispatch mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch
>