Re: [Uri-review] Review Provisional registration for app URI scheme

Stian Soiland-Reyes <> Tue, 23 January 2018 14:59 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92703126C2F for <>; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 06:59:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.93
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.93 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, ENV_AND_HDR_SPF_MATCH=-0.5, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PfariksWfOkn for <>; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 06:59:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with SMTP id 30521126C23 for <>; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 06:59:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 43111 invoked by uid 99); 23 Jan 2018 14:59:02 -0000
Received: from (HELO ( by (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 14:59:02 +0000
Received: from localhost ( []) by (ASF Mail Server at with ESMTPSA id F170F1A0068; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 14:59:01 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 14:58:59 +0000
Message-ID: <20180123145859.GE6221@biggie>
From: Stian Soiland-Reyes <>
To: Graham Klyne <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <20180117144647.GC5245@biggie> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <20180122013403.GC855@biggie> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Uri-review] Review Provisional registration for app URI scheme
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proposed URI Schemes <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 14:59:05 -0000

On Tue, 23 Jan 2018 10:43:37 +0000, Graham Klyne <>; wrote:
> The historical use could IMO constitute a "compelling practical reason", 
> depending on the scope and nature of its deployment.  A registration of 'app' as 
> historical, or a note about it's origins in the registration template for the 
> revised scheme might be options to consider here.

Yes, perhaps such an historical registration can also point forward to
the arcp registration.  

I'll keep (but modify) the "History" section in the arcp Internet-Draft.

> I think local-use URI schemes (like app was?) create a kind of messy corner 
> case: the local-use may be fine until (a) someone wants to use the same name for 
> something else on the global network, or (b) the scheme leaks from its local 
> use.  I sometimes think of these as "URI-like strings" rather than full-on URIs, 
> but I'm sure others would have different perspectives.

Yes, this is why early specifications of widget URI scheme strongly
recommended UUID authorities, so that such URIs would be safe to leak
(although non-functioning outside the local system).  For whatever
reason this recommendation was lifted in later app-uri specs which
increased risk of collisions.

I am ambivalent if my proposed "name," prefix should be kept in "arcp"
or if we should only recommend UUID or hash.

(but at least with DNS names you will mainly collide with yourself :)  

Stian Soiland-Reyes
The University of Manchester