IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Uri-review] Review Request of new URI Scheme

Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org> Tue, 13 August 2013 16:58 UTC

Return-Path: <mark@coactus.com>
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 CF23A21E808A for <uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Aug 2013 09:58:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 tHT19V1f5zmO for <uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Aug 2013 09:58:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pb0-f42.google.com (mail-pb0-f42.google.com [209.85.160.42]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1169521F8F61 for <uri-review@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Aug 2013 09:58:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pb0-f42.google.com with SMTP id un15so8188795pbc.29 for <uri-review@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Aug 2013 09:58:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=L0BKG2GVW/cVMjKoFkM51HcoN4/3l2bKmx4vKiWz7uA=; b=VhF98SI221e1+XXKfmz4KmxwROAdUpW6ESQit9YOCzBPoL+SU8Aa8kmeDUiJYj/kN3 f3b3bWyV6UDAlYtch3nfs90uDg92xiJfM2i+abrN0Sxd43PxVhgYoIkl3hPcWc6IsPte TqPjpDZDtla48eyUnNrBd/GJYrX3sJdoXz4Yd1gPfph+YTVOfrUaE4h7bZIN9IC4C074 P5zhzfBE9eqIvvAXERTXYqznraayp90OWpKup/7UoQ7C90M1aWAdeL/22nk9AZXKKwwM G0ObZFz6MRXvMMB4pJV0FbdIdWE/64VcVcOJ3TBg0RSsA/lCUGeGEUl9M6LMg4VOukA+ 4+mg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQm7DxwQQc+BmbspaGi4HwtzOGB37jK52F6XlZ5gH3eWWF7TbQjPTvgftxtQ03Ns+rgLXc+j
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.66.26.194 with SMTP id n2mr5536653pag.151.1376413109506; Tue, 13 Aug 2013 09:58:29 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: mark@coactus.com
Received: by 10.70.25.67 with HTTP; Tue, 13 Aug 2013 09:58:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [24.212.223.132]
In-Reply-To: <5209AE78-9A6C-4549-BD79-05DFF1617918@tibco.com>
References: <490F1DBE-15CF-4F1D-96EE-DB5B465C936D@incomedia.eu> <5209AE78-9A6C-4549-BD79-05DFF1617918@tibco.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2013 12:58:29 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: GGvZ7szMERxCmUgxLWybTs7c3D0
Message-ID: <CALcoZioqp6-h_cvp2Hnn7478iQcbtPdJei+QHVtby7KK__+v=w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
To: "uri-review@ietf.org" <uri-review@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Subject: Re: [Uri-review] Review Request of new URI Scheme
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: Tue, 13 Aug 2013 16:58:35 -0000

I note that this is a provisional registration, so the "demonstrated
utility" requirement doesn't apply at the same strength as permanent
registration.

Following the provisional template, there's a few tidbits of
information that should be provided (security considerations, chief
amoungst them IMO). But I'm also personally of the opinion that any
form of provisional registration is better than none.

FWIW, I also note the similarity to the abandoned "feed" URI scheme
from Microsoft some years ago.

Mark.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email