IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Uri-review] URI scheme registration request

Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com> Sat, 14 November 2015 20:07 UTC

Return-Path: <dthaler@microsoft.com>
X-Original-To: uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5078E1B2BA6 for <uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 14 Nov 2015 12:07:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -104.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, GB_I_LETTER=-2, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nyKixTfAjcQm for <uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 14 Nov 2015 12:07:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from na01-bn1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bn1on0770.outbound.protection.outlook.com [IPv6:2a01:111:f400:fc10::770]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 50FCE1B2BA3 for <uri-review@ietf.org>; Sat, 14 Nov 2015 12:07:42 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=selector1; h=From:To:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=ojY9kAztU5EP3Mif8D8MuvfZYTkQ1gdmgosG6XL1DvA=; b=QRdkrnAi6LoLUE4seXzG5vr4RFfacAfPqMmdWLMih3DAiXvfwG5PLp5y/K+w48XPtuP5exz0bfY5M7mGUYazn83Zwj3PUADzRHBp2KCV4KUH35mcd6rC1ZmylBv7/MUYuvYdk7zkkqd6bVVJLHUbD96lwfL+QDYYKdiWPQyjqWo=
Received: from BY2PR03MB412.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.141.141.25) by BY2PR03MB409.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.141.141.11) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.325.17; Sat, 14 Nov 2015 20:07:21 +0000
Received: from BY2PR03MB412.namprd03.prod.outlook.com ([10.141.141.25]) by BY2PR03MB412.namprd03.prod.outlook.com ([10.141.141.25]) with mapi id 15.01.0325.003; Sat, 14 Nov 2015 20:07:21 +0000
From: Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com>
To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, John Wason <wason@wasontech.com>
Thread-Topic: [Uri-review] URI scheme registration request
Thread-Index: AQHRHf069gSlPH9NLECfLSMEpDrlIp6a906AgAAIYoCAAOHjAIAAEfZQ
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 2015 20:07:20 +0000
Message-ID: <BY2PR03MB412048F8332055735B3CFFDA3100@BY2PR03MB412.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
References: <564531FC.7000606@wasontech.com> <2D58682309E75147BB3B286C815CAC7E2ACD0A184B@AUSX7MCPS308.AMER.DELL.COM> <5646C765.4050907@wasontech.com> <E3443077-C4D8-496E-BCD0-661F387831E3@gbiv.com>
In-Reply-To: <E3443077-C4D8-496E-BCD0-661F387831E3@gbiv.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=dthaler@microsoft.com;
x-originating-ip: [50.35.72.237]
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; BY2PR03MB409; 5:ttGbROfId3W3r0SbbNiyV6DhP35zPI4j4u4yAoCye5lyQ1vAnFOeslkYgxuTmy7Mgsv/KJ2Cj4awqkH5ueBbMccaMcl5I5YwOxqNtiaaRVkYf6gTsxID4iMk36iBEEUg7E7nhhsK10HxyHP9UIA2Ww==; 24:lcbv/M2oEjGbP3r7ytkQt7pEKNOZ9EHJ9Cm6b6JZhYgTUqjcbbYQ2RuTmLCvOW1j++rGG1kkFWBOZrxQ75Vy+Z55qmuC7Ul42QctWic7Srw=; 20:OcM4aRwKZDfZjW6ArlEeDA2KVsM59Q+k8U692qFmJ2Aw7WociIk42bNWELKqLMKGKizNT39Wrq/UNMwcmqEJpA==
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:BY2PR03MB409;
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <BY2PR03MB40953A2D6D717081052B73EA3100@BY2PR03MB409.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(108003899814671);
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(61425024)(601004)(2401047)(5005006)(520078)(8121501046)(3002001)(10201501046)(61426024)(61427024); SRVR:BY2PR03MB409; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:BY2PR03MB409;
x-forefront-prvs: 07607ED19A
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(24454002)(199003)(189002)(92566002)(5008740100001)(19300405004)(10290500002)(54356999)(99286002)(15975445007)(50986999)(33656002)(106116001)(19580395003)(10090500001)(77096005)(76176999)(102836002)(101416001)(74316001)(19625215002)(105586002)(586003)(19609705001)(16236675004)(66066001)(93886004)(5005710100001)(2900100001)(10400500002)(106356001)(2950100001)(8990500004)(87936001)(5002640100001)(122556002)(11100500001)(5007970100001)(5001770100001)(86612001)(5001920100001)(5001960100002)(76576001)(81156007)(5003600100002)(189998001)(97736004)(5004730100002)(40100003)(86362001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:BY2PR03MB409; H:BY2PR03MB412.namprd03.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: microsoft.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:23
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_BY2PR03MB412048F8332055735B3CFFDA3100BY2PR03MB412namprd_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: microsoft.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 14 Nov 2015 20:07:20.1390 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 72f988bf-86f1-41af-91ab-2d7cd011db47
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BY2PR03MB409
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/uri-review/K3wTuiok4mDBP7MPEkFVNQuZDiE>
Cc: "uri-review@ietf.org" <uri-review@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Uri-review] URI scheme registration request
X-BeenThere: uri-review@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Sat, 14 Nov 2015 20:07:46 -0000

Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> A URI scheme should define what it names and how that naming maps to the URI syntax.
> There is nothing wrong with using separate schemes for different transports if those transports
> are essential parts of the name (e.g., if something named Fred at TCP:80 is different from something
> named Fred at UDP:89898).  (I prefer using dots, like rr.tcp and rr.udp and rr.tcp.tls.)

Careful… RFC 7595 states:
   Furthermore, to prevent collisions with private-use scheme names, new
   scheme names registered MUST NOT contain a "." unless actually
   constructed from a reversed domain name.

So rr.tcp should only be done if you register rr as a TLD, and since rr is 2 letters, it’s reserved for a country code.

Dave

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email