[Uri-review] [IANA #1274073] RE: Registration request for "at" URI scheme

Hi Graham, 

We've added the note below to the "at" entry's "Description" field: 

https://www.iana.org/assignments/uri-schemes

Best regards, 

Sabrina Tanamal
Lead IANA Services Specialist

On Fri Jun 23 13:48:48 2023, GK@ninebynine.org wrote:
> Hello IANA,
> 
> In my role as URI scheme reviewer, I would like to request addition of
> the
> following reviewer note to the provisional registry entry for the "at"
> URI
> scheme.   My proposal (modulo minor text changes) has been circulated
> to the
> URI-review list, and no objections were raised.
> 
> (I anticipate this will follow the same administrative pattern as the
> notes
> created for, e.g., 'dhttp', 'swid', etc.)
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> #g
> 
> 
> [[
> 
> ## IANA reviewer note (dated 2023-06-23)
> 
> The 'at' URI scheme has been provisionally registered under the “first
> come first
> served” policy set out in RFC 7595.  This means that the scheme has
> not been
> formally reviewed in the IETF, and is not recommended by the IETF for
> general
> use on the open Internet.
> 
> There has been some discussion of this scheme on the IETF URI-review
> list
> [R1,R2], and there is a considerable degree of concern that the scheme
> name 'at'
> could be a cause of confusion, or conflict with other common uses of
> the term
> 'at'.  For these reasons, it has been suggested that the name
> 'atproto' or 'atp'
> might be more suitable.  This could turn out to be an impediment to a
> subsequent
> request for permanent registration of this scheme name.
> 
> This note is intended to draw attention to potential problems that
> might arise
> if this scheme were to be used widely on the open Internet, and does
> not of
> itself constitute a position by the IETF or IANA on the considerations
> raised.
> 
> [R1]https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/uri-
> review/x3LbUP7_DOlEFCH84QvZdRU74Js/
> (refers to all messages in thread)
> 
> [R2]https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/uri-review/uGgzryN-
> wG9PzrQU06bd4_zlW3s/
> (refers to all messages in thread)
> 
> ]]
> 
> 
> On 06/06/2023 18:11, IANA Protocol Parameter Requests via RT wrote:
> > To whom it may concern:
> >
> > This is an automatically generated message to notify you that we have
> > received your request, and it has been recorded in our ticketing
> > system with a reference number of 1274420. To check the status
> > of your request, please see:
> >
> > https://tools.iana.org/public-view
> >
> > If you have any problems accessing this page, please contact
> > iana@iana.org.
> >
> > There is no need to reply to this message right now. IANA staff will
> > review your message shortly.
> >
> > If this message is in reply to a previously submitted ticket, it is
> > possible that the previous ticket has been marked as closed. As we
> > review this ticket, we will also review previous correspondence and
> > take appropriate action.
> >
> > To expedite processing, and ensure our staff can view the full
> > history
> > of this request, please make sure you include the follow exact text
> > in
> > the subject line of all future correspondence on this issue:
> >
> > [IANA #1274420]
> >
> > You can also simply reply to this message, as this tag is already in
> > the subject line.
> >
> > Thank you,
> >
> > The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority
> > iana-prot-param@iana.org
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Hi,
> >
> > As IANA reviewer, I propose to request addition of the following note
> > to this
> > registration.
> >
> > I'm posting here for information and comment before I make a formal
> > request to IANA.
> >
> > #g
> >
> >
> > [[
> >
> > ## IANA reviewer note
> >
> > This scheme has been provisionally registered under the “first come
> > first
> > served” policy set out in RFC 7595.  This means that the scheme has
> > not been
> > formally reviewed in the IETF, and is not recommended by the IETF for
> > general
> > use on the open Internet.
> >
> > There has been some discussion of this scheme on the IETF URI-review
> > list
> > [R1,R2], and there is a considerable degree of concern that the
> > scheme name 'at'
> > could be a cause of confusion, or conflict with other common uses of
> > the term
> > 'at'.  For these reasons, it has been suggested that the name
> > 'atproto' or 'atp'
> > might be more suitable.  This could turn out to be an impediment to a
> > subsequent
> > request for permanent registration of this scheme name.
> >
> > This note is intended to draw attention to potential problems that
> > might arise
> > if this scheme were to be used widely on the open Internet, and does
> > not of
> > itself constitute a position by the IETF or IANA on the
> > considerations raised.
> >
> > [R1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/uri-
> > review/x3LbUP7_DOlEFCH84QvZdRU74Js/
> > (refers to all messages in thread)
> >
> > [R2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/uri-review/uGgzryN-
> > wG9PzrQU06bd4_zlW3s/
> > (refers to all messages in thread)
> >
> > ]]
> >
> >
> >
> > On 01/06/2023 23:59, bnewbold@robocracy.org wrote:
> >> Hi Dave,
> >>
> >> What do you think of an addition like:
> >>
> >> ---
> >>
> >> Disambiguation Note
> >>    This URI scheme has no association with the 'at' command line
> >> utility for
> >> scheduling program execution.
> >>
> >> ---
> >>
> >> --bryan
> >>
> >> On Thu, 1 Jun 2023, Dave Thaler wrote:
> >>
> >>> In my opinion it would be helpful to include a Note since this
> >>> registration
> >>> doesn't follow the "SHOULD" (which is ok since its not a MUST) in
> >>> RFC 7595:
> >>> "   Schemes SHOULD NOT use names that are either very general
> >>> purpose or
> >>>    associated in the community with some other application or
> >>> protocol."
> >>>
> >>> since "at", is a well known (e.g., see
> >>> https://linux.die.net/man/1/atapplication,
> >>> https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-
> >>> server/administration/windows-commands/at,
> >>> etc.) application for scheduling job execution.
> >>>
> >>> It would be helpful to acknowledge this to avoid confusion.
> >>>
> >>> Dave
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Uri-review mailing list
> >> Uri-review@ietf.org
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review