Re: [Uri-review] URI scheme registration request

Agree, the bar for provisional is supposed to be low.

From: Ted Hardie [mailto:ted.ietf@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 1, 2015 8:01 AM
To: John Wason <wason@wasontech.com>
Cc: Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com>; uri-review@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Uri-review] URI scheme registration request

On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 7:07 PM, John Wason <wason@wasontech.com<mailto:wason@wasontech.com>> wrote:
Are there any more questions about this request?  I have not received any replies.

Hi John,

I think this is sufficient for provisional registration.  Hopefully some other folks can chime in as well.
regards,
Ted

On 11/14/2015 6:37 PM, Dave Thaler wrote:
Short answer: unfortunately no

This was the subject of issue #16:
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/appsawg/trac/ticket/16<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2ftrac.tools.ietf.org%2fwg%2fappsawg%2ftrac%2fticket%2f16&data=01%7c01%7cdthaler%40microsoft.com%7c37eb512ebef94a1fb87008d2fa689d03%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=RlvsO%2fHiWenlx%2bp7j7qh5Bbu9t7P0qdij94%2fR%2bfU0VM%3d>

It was discussed at IETF 89 and then again at IETF 90. In both cases, and as confirmed on the list,
the consensus of the WG was to not allow a notion of wildcards.   Instead you have to individually
register each such scheme.  I see “svn+ssh” is not currently registered, but it sounds like it ought to be.

Dave

From: John Wason [mailto:wason@wasontech.com]
Sent: Saturday, November 14, 2015 2:21 PM
To: Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com><mailto:dthaler@microsoft.com>; Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com><mailto:fielding@gbiv.com>
Cc: uri-review@ietf.org<mailto:uri-review@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Uri-review] URI scheme registration request

Is it possible to register a "wildcard" or have an understanding that the scheme can be appended with the transport type?  Subversion uses "svn+ssh" to specify an ssh tunnel.  This format seems to be used occasionally in practice.  Because the different transports can point to completely different resources on the same host I am not sure having the transport in the query portion is the correct solution.

On 11/14/2015 3:07 PM, Dave Thaler wrote:
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

--

John Wason, Ph.D.

Wason Technology, LLC

PO Box 669

Tuxedo, NY 10987

(518) 279-6234<tel:%28518%29%20279-6234>

wason@wasontech.com<mailto:wason@wasontech.com>

--

John Wason, Ph.D.

Wason Technology, LLC

PO Box 669

Tuxedo, NY 10987

(518) 279-6234<tel:%28518%29%20279-6234>

wason@wasontech.com<mailto:wason@wasontech.com>

_______________________________________________
Uri-review mailing list
Uri-review@ietf.org<mailto:Uri-review@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2fwww.ietf.org%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2furi-review&data=01%7c01%7cdthaler%40microsoft.com%7c37eb512ebef94a1fb87008d2fa689d03%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=R%2b3eqR8z3uOAFMjcg86IxlhWMF8qSHuCJfkApmjFobc%3d>