Proposed amendment to language of draft-ietf-url-procedures

Folks, 

In the recent discussion about a certain URL scheme, it became apparent that
we had left a hole in our document (draft-ietf-url-procedures-07.txt)
regarding Informational RFCs and URL scheme registrations.  From my notes,
we had agreed to include Informational as an allowed form of document for
submission, because it would be a less burdensome route for the "owner" of
an existing scheme to register, to the benefit of all.  However, that
purpose (and the restriction it implies) did not get translated into
language in the draft.  

Having exchanged email with several people on this, it appears we need to
amend the first paragraph of section 3.2 to read something like:

	Registration in the IETF tree requires publication of the URL scheme
syntax and semantics in either an Informational or Standards Track RFC. An
Informational RFC may be employed for registration only in the case of a URL
scheme which is already in wide usage; the creation of a new URL scheme
requires a Standards Track RFC.  The IESG shall determine whether a URL
scheme submitted by Informational RFC meets the "wide usage" standard.  As a
suggestion, a URL scheme may be considered to be in "wide usage" if there
exist multiple interoperable implementations that support the scheme, or if
the scheme can be shown to be in common use on the Internet.  Regardless, an
Informational RFC purporting to describe a URL scheme shall not be published
without IESG approval.  

I believe this to be the LAST (phew) such change we need to make to gain
acceptance for this document.  We were also "on hold" pending a re-review by
the Security ADs (which was the change incorporated in version -07 of this
draft), last I heard from our Area Director.