Re: [Uri-review] [IANA #1271079] Re: Registration of dhttp Schema name (uri-schemes)

[Graham Klyne <[e-mail]>]

Hi Sabrina,

Thanks for the reminder.  No immediate action for IANA yet, but please send a reminder in a couple of weeks or so if you haven’t heard further.

I was initially waiting to see if there was any response to my vague suggestions.  Hearing no objections, I think the next step is for me to draft a comment to be added to the provisional registrations noted, circulate it to this uri-review list for comment, and, if no objection, send a request to you under this ticket to add notes to those registry entries.

I’m travelling at the moment, so  probably won’t be in a position to action this for a week or so.  But if nothing heard from me (or anyone else who may offer a proposal) in a couple of weeks, please nudge me again.

Thanks,

#g


Sent from my iPhone

> On 28 Apr 2023, at 17:45, Sabrina Tanamal via RT <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Graham, 
> 
> Just following up on this thread. Are there any actions required from IANA? 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Sabrina Tanamal
> Lead IANA Services Specialist
> 
>> On Thu Apr 20 10:34:36 2023, [e-mail] wrote:
>> I see two possible ways forward:
>> 
>> 1. There is an "escape hatch" clause in the registration procedure
>> that allows
>> the IESG to be final arbiter of any contentious registration.
>> 
>> 2. As scheme reviewer, I can request a note be added to the registry
>> entry
>> pointing out that the scheme is contentious, the reasons why, and as
>> such is NOT
>> RECOMMENDED for use on the open Internet.  I would be reluctant to do
>> so on my
>> opinion alone, but I'm seeing sufficient concern expressed here for
>> that to be a
>> reasonable request.
>> 
>> Personally, I think the latter is preferable, for reasons that Ted
>> mentions in a
>> later email.  There are a number of provisionally registered schemes
>> that got
>> snuck in un-noticed before we set up the process of sending
>> notifications of
>> provisional registrations to this list (following the last London IETF
>> meeting),
>> and I'd be inclined to request a similar note be added to the 'web3'
>> scheme.
>> 
>> #g
>> 
>> 
>>> On 19/04/2023 10:18, Ted Hardie wrote:
>>> Hi Roy,
>>> 
>>> The current list of requirements for provisionals is in RFC 7595,
>>> Section 4:
>>> 
>>> The scheme name must meet the syntactic requirements ofSection 3.8.
>>> 
>>>    o  There must not already be an entry with the same scheme name. 
>>> In
>>>       the unfortunate case that there are multiple, different uses of
>>>       the same scheme name, the Designated Expert can approve a
>>> request
>>>       to modify an existing entry to note the separate use.
>>> 
>>>    o  Contact information identifying the person supplying the
>>>       registration must be included.  Previously unregistered schemes
>>>       discovered in use can be registered by third parties (even if
>>> not
>>>       on behalf of those who created the scheme).  In this case, both
>>>       the registering party and the scheme creator SHOULD be
>>> identified.
>>> 
>>>    o  If no permanent, citable specification for the scheme
>>> definition
>>>       is included, credible reasons for not providing it SHOULD be
>>>       given.
>>> 
>>>    o  The scheme definition SHOULD include clear security
>>> considerations
>>>       (Section 3.7) or explain why a full security analysis is not
>>>       available (e.g., in a third-party scheme registration).
>>> 
>>>    o  If the scheme definition does not meet the guidelines laid out
>>> in
>>>       Section 3, the differences and reasons SHOULD be noted.
>>> 
>>> While it may be the case that using 'dhttp' implies something to
>>> humans about
>>> the relationship toother schemes, it meets the current test that
>>> "there must
>>> not already be an entry with the same scheme name".  As you will no
>>> doubt
>>> recall, we loosened the registration of provisionals in this way
>>> because folks
>>> were minting URI schemes without registration and the risk of
>>> collision was
>>> getting worse as a result.
>>> 
>>> I am not as clear, though, about whether this registration is
>>> intended to
>>> deprecate web3 (which is also a provisionally registered URI scheme)
>>> so that
>>> web3 could be marked historic.  If that is the case, we could at
>>> least
>>> eliminate the alias scheme issue which you note below.
>>> 
>>> Just my personal opinion, of course,
>>> 
>>> Ted
>>> 
>>> On Tue, Apr 18, 2023 at 4:45 PM Roy T. Fielding <[e-mail]>
>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Is there a way that we can block provisional registrations that are
>>>> actively
>>> harmful?
>>>> 
>>>>   1) this is abusing the existing http and https schemes;
>>>>   2) alias schemes are harmful, in general; and,
>>>>   3) web3 is a scam that we shouldn't make respectable by
>>>> association with HTTP.
>>>> 
>>>> .....Roy
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> On Apr 17, 2023, at 4:14 PM, Sabrina Tanamal via RT
>>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hi Qi,
>>>>> 
>>>>> We've added provisional URI scheme dhttp to the registry:
>>>>> 
>>>>> https://www.iana.org/assignments/uri-schemes/prov/dhttp
>>>>> 
>>>>> Registry: https://www.iana.org/assignments/uri-schemes
>>>>> 
>>>>> Per the designated expert for URI Schemes registry, we're also
>>>>> notifying
>>> the [e-mail] mailing list upon completing a provisional
>>> registration.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Sabrina Tanamal
>>>>> Lead IANA Services Specialist
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Mon Apr 17 03:05:35 2023, [e-mail] wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Amanda,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> We would like to register dhttp:// schema with the following
>>>>>> information
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Schema name: dhttp
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Status: Provisional
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Applications/protocols that use this scheme:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> This schema dhttp:// is the alias of schema web3://
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Contact:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Qi Zhou
>>>>>> 55 E 3rd Ave, San Mateo, CA 94401
>>>>>> mailto: [e-mail]
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Change controller:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Qi Zhou
>>>>>> 55 E 3rd Ave, San Mateo, CA 94401
>>>>>> mailto: [e-mail]
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> References:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> A draft specification can be found at
>>>>>> https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-4804 (replacing web3:// with
>>>>>> dhttp://)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Scheme syntax:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> "dhttp://" [userinfo "@"] contractName [":" chainid] path ["?"
>>>>>> query]
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> - Qi
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Uri-review mailing list
>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Uri-review mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Uri-review mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review
>