Re: [dispatch] Tiny update to RFC 3405

(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