Re: [Uri-review] [apps-discuss] Provisional URI registrations

["Martin J. Dürst" <[e-mail]>]

Hello John, others,

(cc'ing the IRI WG mailing list, because it is chartered to work on an 
update of RFC 4395 (Guidelines and Registration Procedures for New URI 
Schemes); please reduce cc list in replies whenever possible)

On 2010/11/22 12:41, John C Klensin wrote:
>
>
> --On Monday, November 22, 2010 09:48 +0900 "\"Martin J.
> Dürst\""<[e-mail]>  wrote:
>
>> On 2010/11/22 7:25, Graham Klyne wrote:
>>
>>> We have "permanent", "provisional" and "historical"
>>> registration classes for URI schemes. For practical purposes,
>>> I think the "provisional" registry serves the same role as
>>> the "reserved" one you suggest [1]. I think the additional
>>> bureaucracy incurred to create a new registry class is not
>>> justified by practical benefit.
>>
>> +1.
>
> I would agree, except that:
>
> (1) We now have proposals to remove things from Provisional that
> have well-defined protocol specs and evidence of use because
> they have been Provisional too long.  Fighting battles of that
> sort is lots more painful than setting up a new registry
> category, especially since...

I don't think fighting such battles should be painful. If A says a 
scheme (or protocol) is no longer in use, and B say it's in use, then B 
just wins. Having to say "the scheme (or protocol) is still in use" 
every two years or so may indeed some pain, but not too much.

> (2) Not having a Reserved category from the beginning appears to
> be an error on IANA's part, not something the IETF specified in
> any way.

In what way is it IANA's error? RFC 4395 
(http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4395) is pretty clear (as Graham has 
already explained) that there are three categories: Permanent, 
Provisional, and Historical.

> If that is correct, it should be possible to deal
> with it as correcting an error, which is (or should be) an
> extremely lightweight procedure.

I don't understand how it could be correct, but maybe I'm missing 
something. Anyway, I encourage everybody who thinks an additional 
Reserved category is needed, or some other clarifications could help, to 
submit their proposal as an issue on draft-ietf-iri-4395bis-irireg 
(http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-iri-4395bis-irireg (Guidelines 
and Registration Procedures for New URI/IRI Schemes)) to the IRI WG 
(mailing list address: [e-mail]). The current list of active 
issues of the WG can be found at 
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/iri/trac/report/1.

Regards,   Martin.

-- 
#-# Martin J. Dürst, Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-# http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp   mailto:[e-mail]