Re: [Uri-review] New URI scheme for review

On 11/10/2011 07:00, Frank Ellermann wrote:
> On 11 October 2011 01:30, Bob Van Zant<bob@eventbrite.com>  wrote:
>
>> It looks like most URI schemes like this one are never registered
>> with IANA. It seems like The Right Thing to do and so I present to
>> the list the URI scheme com-eventbrite-attendee.
>
> Yeah.  I'd be tempted to reject it as "vanity URI scheme in conflict
> with RFC 4395 2.1 Demonstratable, New, Long-Lived Utility", but that
> might be not "the right thing", and besides only the expert reviewer
> (= not me) could say so.

As a reviewer, that's not how I see the review process.  It's not one reviewer 
making a quality judgement, but checking that the stated requirements for 
registration have been met.

 From what I've seen, I'd say there's at least enough information here to 
justify a provisional registration.  For permanent registration, I'd be looking 
for evidence of community consensus that this is useful and well-conceived and 
has long-lived value.  I don't think "vanity" per se is a consideration or concern.

...

Speaking for myself, this does indeed look like a case that is not easily 
satisfied by existing URI schemes.  I had some thoughts along the lines of the 
"exec" scheme mentioned later in this thread, but I'm not sure either way: 
essentially, in the tradition of handling comp sci problems, it's another level 
of indirection, and I don't know if there would be enough new URI schemes like 
this to justify that new level.

Maybe there's scope for a URI scheme for encoding "web intent" style handoff? 
(http://webintents.org/)

For a proprietary application that does not claim to interoperate with others I 
think the name form chosen is very appropriate - later maybe we'll even see more 
open interoperability in this event space using a more generic name-form?

#g
--

> Disclaimer, I have not yet read the 4395bis drafts, maybe 4395bis
> will drop the "long-lived utility" blurb in favour of a new "above
> all let's have it registered" approach.
>
> With that out of the way, are you sure that you want an OPTIONAL
> query part in the syntax?  If the query part is actually REQUIRED
> for this scheme maybe remove the square brackets in the syntax:
>
>> URI scheme syntax.
>>     uri = "com-eventbrite-attendee:" method [ "?" query ]
>>     method = "resetpassword" / "tickets"
>
> If you happen to have a web page with more technical details please
> add it to the references.  If that is not (yet) the case it is no
> problem, your explanation in the registration template is clear.
>
> -Frank
> _______________________________________________
> Uri-review mailing list
> Uri-review@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review
>