Re: [Uri-review] PKCS#11 URI registration request review

It's completely unclear to me what advantage you get from having this stuff packed into a URI rather than some XML/JSON data structure, which would more easily address the I18N and other issues.
It seems like the applicability of this "scheme" is to fit into a "URI" slot in some protocol that doesn't need to be a URI but just some other kind of Identifier.

I'm willing to believe there's a justification and that the document just doesn't give it.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: uri-review-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:uri-review-bounces@ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of Jan Pechanec
> Sent: Friday, February 08, 2013 5:29 PM
> To: uri-review@ietf.org
> Cc: Darren.Moffat@oracle.com
> Subject: Re: [Uri-review] PKCS#11 URI registration request review
> 
> On Sat, 26 Jan 2013, Jan Pechanec wrote:
> 
> 	hi, the section 5.2 of RFC 4395 notes "Allow a reasonable time
> for discussion and comments. Four weeks is reasonable for a permanent
> registration requests."
> 
> 	I will wait for two more weeks if there is any feedback (which
> would be greatly appreciated) to make it 4 weeks in total, and if there
> is none I will continue with the next step, which is the submission to
> iana@iana.org.
> 
> 	regards, Jan.
> 
> >	hello,
> >
> >	in accordance with section "5.2. Registration Procedures" of RFC
> >4395 "Guidelines and Registration Procedures for New URI Schemes", I
> >respectfully request a review for our planned permanent registration
> >request of the PKCS#11 URI as specified in the following I-D:
> >
> >	http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-pechanec-pkcs11uri-08 
> >
> >	the registration template is attached.
> >
> >	best regards, Jan Pechanec
> >
> >
> 
> --
> Jan Pechanec
> http://blogs.oracle.com/janp
> _______________________________________________
> Uri-review mailing list
> Uri-review@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review