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

[Bob Van Zant <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 11:00 PM, Frank Ellermann
<[e-mail]> wrote:
> On 11 October 2011 01:30, Bob Van Zant <[e-mail]> 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.

The same thoughts went through my head. But then I wondered why the
authors bothered to invent the com-domain-descriptor syntax. Though, I
think we have demonstrable, new and long lived utility. It just so
happens that it really only applies to our application and URIs that
our website generate as part of communication to our customers. I
could see some utility of this being registered so that application
developers of, for example, mail gateway software and in particular
anti-{spam,malware} software, would be aware of our scheme and not
immediately assume something malicious or nefarious.

>
> 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.

Nope, it still has its own section (3.1).

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-iri-4395bis-irireg-03

>
> 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"
>

The optional was intentional. The "tickets" method, for example,
doesn't require any parameters. It simply means open up the app and
bring me to the tickets screen. Along these lines we're requesting
provisional status because we assume that we will add new methods in
the near future; though we do not know what they are just yet.

Thanks for the feedback.

-Bob