Re: [Uri-review] 'duri' and 'tdb' => Experimental (= Provisional registration)

"Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp> Mon, 23 January 2012 01:25 UTC

Return-Path: <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
X-Original-To: uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F3D421F85EC for <uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 22 Jan 2012 17:25:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.495
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.495 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.705, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id twXWADaJ6snG for <uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 22 Jan 2012 17:25:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from scintmta01.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp (scintmta01.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp [133.2.253.33]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 669AE21F85EA for <uri-review@ietf.org>; Sun, 22 Jan 2012 17:25:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from scmse02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp ([133.2.253.231]) by scintmta01.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp (secret/secret) with SMTP id q0N1PDwZ004156 for <uri-review@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 10:25:13 +0900
Received: from (unknown [133.2.206.133]) by scmse02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp with smtp id 5b16_35a7_19770194_4561_11e1_aca5_001d096c5782; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 10:25:13 +0900
Received: from [IPv6:::1] ([133.2.210.1]:54916) by itmail.it.aoyama.ac.jp with [XMail 1.22 ESMTP Server] id <S158EC47> for <uri-review@ietf.org> from <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 10:25:16 +0900
Message-ID: <4F1CB6F7.8070100@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 10:25:11 +0900
From: =?UTF-8?B?Ik1hcnRpbiBKLiBEw7xyc3Qi?= <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Organization: Aoyama Gakuin University
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100722 Eudora/3.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
References: <00c301ccd880$3e701c90$bb5055b0$@acm.org>
In-Reply-To: <00c301ccd880$3e701c90$bb5055b0$@acm.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: uri-review@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Uri-review] 'duri' and 'tdb' => Experimental (= Provisional registration)
X-BeenThere: uri-review@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proposed URI Schemes <uri-review.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/uri-review>, <mailto:uri-review-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/uri-review>
List-Post: <mailto:uri-review@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:uri-review-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review>, <mailto:uri-review-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 01:25:21 -0000

On 2012/01/22 6:04, Larry Masinter wrote:
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-masinter-dated-uri-10

> This has been kicking around for more than 10 years as an Internet Draft.
>
> I was asked at least for something more stable, and I want to take this
>
> off my queue.

> The URI scheme registry doesn't have an 'experimental' section, so I think
> these should be noted as 'provisional'.

My understanding is that they should be registered as provisional 
already at the moment an ID is submitted. For an experimental RFC, I 
think either provisional or permanent would be okay.

In any case, please move forward with this towards RFC.

Regards,   Martin.