Re: [Uri-review] [IANA #1270959] Registration of dhttp Schema name (uri-schemes)

["Roy T. Fielding" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Ted,

I've always believed that such processes are describing the technical review of
registered names rather than matter-of-fact social review. I would expect things
like libel, profanity, racism, or cooption of existing names to be blocked somewhere
regardless of the RFC.  By blocked somewhere, I mean we should have a general
mechanism for quickly approving/denying questionable entries even if "provisional"
is  supposed to be an easy path for technical questions.

I don't believe {short-prefix}{ietf-standard} should ever be allowed as a
provisional registration unless the owner is IETF.  That should be assumed of
any IANA registry.  I don't think we need an RFC to state that "https-sucks"
does not belong in the provisional registry, for the same reason.

....Roy


> On Apr 19, 2023, at 2:18 AM, Ted Hardie <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Roy,
> 
> The current list of requirements for provisionals is in RFC 7595, Section 4:
> 
> The scheme name must meet the syntactic requirements of  Section 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 to other 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] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> > >>
> > >> Change controller:
> > >>
> > >> Qi Zhou
> > >> 55 E 3rd Ave, San Mateo, CA 94401
> > >> mailto: [e-mail] <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] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Uri-review mailing list
> > [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review
> _______________________________________________
> Uri-review mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review