Re: [dispatch] Tiny update to RFC 3405

Thanks for the review, Ben.  This change is made in my working copy; I'll
upload that when we get a dispatch decision or after receiving other
updates.

Ted

On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 1:22 PM Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> wrote:

> (no hats)
>
> I agree with Robert that this is a reasonable candidate to be AD sponsored.
>
> I propose the following edit to section 2, just to be formal about things.
> (I recognize it’s a bit pedantic :-) )
>
> OLD:
> All registrations in URI.ARPA MUST be for schemes which are permanent
> registrations, as they are described in BCP 35
> .
> NEW:
> This document removes the normative requirement in [RFC 3405] for
> registrations in URI.ARPA to be in the IETF URI Tree.
>
> All registrations in URI.ARPA MUST be for schemes which are permanent
> registrations, as they are described in BCP 35.
>
> Ben.
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 3, 2020, at 6:13 PM, Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Howdy,
> >
> > This is one the shortest drafts I've ever written:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hardie-dispatch-rfc3405-update/ .
>  Basically, RFC 3405 used to require that registrations in URI.ARPA be from
> the "IETF Tree".  That tree was deprecated after the document was
> published.  As it happens, there are very few registrations in URI.ARPA, so
> we did not catch it and fix it before now.
> >
> > This draft updates RFC 3405 to require "permanent" scheme
> registrations.  The salient bit is this:
> >
> > All registrations in URI.ARPA MUST be for schemes which are permanent
> >    registrations, as they are described in BCP 35.
> >
> >
> > I'm hoping for a quick dispatch of this, but happy to discuss.
> >
> > regards,
> >
> > Ted Hardie
> > _______________________________________________
> > dispatch mailing list
> > dispatch@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch
>
>