Review of URL syntax

Ian King | 27 Sep 1999 07:03

Update: draft-ietf-urlreg-procedures-08.txt

Based on recent mail threads, I have amended this draft to address concerns
raised by our Area Directors and members of the WG; this is in response to
some real life issues that recently arose relative to a proposed URL scheme.
In particular, I've amended paragraph 3.2 to more carefully describe when
one may or may not use an Informational RFC to accomplish registration of a
URL scheme name.  I've previously sent out mail to the list with the
suggested language, and had few comments, so here it is, folks.  

Comments?  Let me have 'em.  Thanks -- Ian 

Ian King <iking <at> microsoft.com>
Speech Product Group
MICROSOFT CORPORATION

headers

Michael A. Dolan | 27 Sep 1999 20:25

Re: Update: draft-ietf-urlreg-procedures-08.txt

Ian-

1. Does the intent of the 3rd sentence of 3.2 meet the requirements 
of a BCP document?  If so, would it be clearer/simpler to simply say 
it MAY be a BCP, and leave the use of Informational at the discretion 
of the IESG for unusual circumstances?

2. The registration process for an alternative tree seems vague.  A 
few "workable" requirements are stated in 4.2, "change control" is 
addressed in 3.3, and registration procedures for teh actual schemes 
is implied.  But I'm not sure I could figure out how to register a 
new tree from this draft alone.  Is there other work in this area 
that covers this?

Thanks,
	Mike

At 10:03 PM 9/26/99 -0700, Ian King wrote:
>Based on recent mail threads, I have amended this draft to address 
concerns
>raised by our Area Directors and members of the WG; this is in 
response to
>some real life issues that recently arose relative to a proposed URL 
scheme.
>In particular, I've amended paragraph 3.2 to more carefully describe 
when
>one may or may not use an Informational RFC to accomplish 
registration of a
>URL scheme name.  I've previously sent out mail to the list with the

(Continue reading)