Re: [Uri-review] Review request for registration of "dtn" and "ipn" schemes as permanet

Graham Klyne <> Tue, 28 January 2020 17:09 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89D5112004D; Tue, 28 Jan 2020 09:09:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.198
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.198 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EAQWKZFbzT-F; Tue, 28 Jan 2020 09:09:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6FB7F120048; Tue, 28 Jan 2020 09:09:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([]) by with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <>) id 1iwUN8-0009OP-iS; Tue, 28 Jan 2020 17:09:54 +0000
Received: from ([] by with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <>) id 1iwUN8-000BZa-GI; Tue, 28 Jan 2020 17:09:54 +0000
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2020 17:09:53 +0000
From: Graham Klyne <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Magnus Westerlund <>, "" <>
CC: "" <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Oxford-Username: zool0635
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Uri-review] Review request for registration of "dtn" and "ipn" schemes as permanet
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proposed URI Schemes <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2020 17:09:58 -0000

Hi, a small point...

As the registration and definition is in an intended-for-standards-track 
document, I think the change controller in the registration template should be 
IETF.  The contact information should remain as given.

Nit: the template at uses the 
heading "Change controller", not "Author/Change controller".  I see these are 
distinct roles.


Another point:  I think the registration template may be based on an earlier 
version of the URI scheme registration procedure.  It was streamlined in RFC7595 
(  In any case, the provided registrations 
contain much detailed documentation about the schemes.

More common practice in documents of this type is to include the scheme 
documentation in the body of the RFC document (where it stands independently of 
the administrative process of registering the scheme), and then to keep the 
registration template minimal by including references to the section(s) where 
the scheme is documented.


On 24/01/2020 10:42, Magnus Westerlund wrote:
> Hi URI reviewers,
> The DTN WG has requested that the IESG to approve the new Bundle Protocol
> specification version 7 (BPv7) as proposed standard. This protocol can use “dtn”
> and “ipn” scheme URIs. So part of this moving from experimental BPv6 to BPv7
> they are also requesting to make the URIs permanent.
> Updated URI templates for the two schemes are present in this document.
> If possible I would appreciate to have any review comments by the 5^th of
> February as the document is on the IESG agenda for the 6^th of February. Sorry
> that I missed the need for an review request when the document was in IETF last
> call, thankfully IANA caught the mistake.
> Thanks
> Magnus Westerlund
> _______________________________________________
> Uri-review mailing list