[Gen-art] RE: Gen-ART review of draft-hansen-2717bis-2718bis-uri-guidelines-05.txt

> Intended status: Proposed Standard

Interesting. The .XML says "Best Current Practice". The generated
.txt and .html don't, though. However, We're definitely
intending BCP, this isn't a standards track document.

> Summary - this document is almost ready for publication. It has two 
> nearly-editorial changes I'd like to see considered:
> 
> - the reader has to dig to notice that there are two kinds of  URIs being 
> registered with different requirements in the same namespace. It would 
> be nice to say this pretty clearly ("These guidelines cover both 
> provisional and permanent URI scheme registrations, which are part of 
> the same URI namespace"), somewhere in Section 1.

OK.

> - 2.8 tries to say, "avoid trademark names", but doesn't say much about 
> why this is a good idea, or (more relevant) how big a problem you have 
> when someone registers your scheme name as trademark. The current text 
> is probably good advice, I'm just asking if there is more guidance that 
> could be provided, too.

I think this is pretty fuzzy advice, alas. And there might be some
dragons (or at least aligators) waiting in those waters.  I don't
expect the "expert" doing "expert review" to review whether there is
a legal trademark and whether the proposed registration is or isn't
consistent with that trademark, in the various jurisdictions of the
world.

I guess we should ask the person submitting the registration to
assert that, as far as they know, the use of the URI scheme name
doesn't have trademark problems. I might want some advice on how
to word that, though.

Larry

_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art