[Uri-review] Request for review

[Frank Ellermann <[e-mail]>]

URI scheme name:
   pack
Status:
   historical
URI scheme syntax:
   There was no pack: syntax compatible with STD 66, cf.
   <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/uri-review/current/msg00678.html>,
   <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/uri-review/current/msg00548.html>.
URI scheme semantics:
   n/a due to a lack of STD 66 syntax.
Encoding considerations:
   The pack: encoding assumed US-ASCII after un-escaping percent-encoded
   characters in an encapsulated <authority> (4.c in the expired drafts)
   and case-insensitive US-ASCII in the <path> (5.c in the expired drafts).
Applications/protocols that use this URI scheme name:
   The pack: scheme could not be used as an URI scheme in applications
   or protocols.  Other uses of pack: are noted in the expired drafts.
Interoperability considerations:
   All URI schemes have to follow the generic STD 66 syntax, as that was
   not the case for pack: any "interoperability" would be by the chance
   of similarly broken implementations.
Security considerations:
   The generic and overall URI syntax is specified in STD 66, anything
   else (not limited to pack:) is no URI and could cause havoc, compare
   <http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/358017>.
Contact:
   <[e-mail]> and <[e-mail]> mailing lists.
Author/Change controller:
   IESG (the transition from a "provisional" to "historical" status is
   not covered by BCP 35 section 5.3; maybe the pack: scheme could be
   simply identified as "non-URI" and removed from the scheme registry).
References:
   STD 66 (RFC 3986), I-D.shur-pack-uri-scheme-05 (same as -03 and -04).