Guidelines and Registration Procedures for URI Schemes
draft-ietf-appsawg-uri-scheme-reg-06
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2015-06-11
|
06 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2015-06-08
|
06 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2015-06-01
|
06 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
2015-05-12
|
06 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2015-05-12
|
06 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from Waiting on Authors |
2015-04-20
|
06 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2015-04-20
|
06 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2015-04-20
|
06 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2015-04-19
|
06 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2015-04-17
|
06 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2015-04-17
|
06 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent |
2015-04-17
|
06 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2015-04-17
|
06 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2015-04-16
|
06 | Barry Leiba | Ballot approval text was generated |
2015-04-16
|
06 | Barry Leiba | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed |
2015-04-16
|
06 | Tero Kivinen | Closed request for Last Call review by SECDIR with state 'No Response' |
2015-04-09
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation |
2015-04-09
|
06 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko |
2015-04-09
|
06 | Martin Stiemerling | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling |
2015-04-08
|
06 | Amanda Baber | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2015-04-08
|
06 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli |
2015-04-08
|
06 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot comment] I support Stephen's comments and was wondering about privacy considerations for the contact information provided as well in scheme registration requests. Just noting … [Ballot comment] I support Stephen's comments and was wondering about privacy considerations for the contact information provided as well in scheme registration requests. Just noting the concern would be good and maybe recommending using a generic organizational contact if possible cold work if that's possible, may not always be. |
2015-04-08
|
06 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty |
2015-04-08
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2015-04-08
|
06 | Dave Thaler | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2015-04-08
|
06 | Dave Thaler | New version available: draft-ietf-appsawg-uri-scheme-reg-06.txt |
2015-04-08
|
05 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
2015-04-08
|
05 | Brian Haberman | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Haberman |
2015-04-07
|
05 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot comment] I put what I think it my most important comment first and hope to see a response to that. (I don't think it'd … [Ballot comment] I put what I think it my most important comment first and hope to see a response to that. (I don't think it'd be correct for it to be a DISCUSS, but it's close.) - 3.7, probably too late in the day to ask for it, but if there are privacy considerations those would also be good to note - and there will be for some of the application-specific schemes, that e.g. have personally identifying information in the scheme specific part. I'd suggest that renaming 3.7 to "security and privacy considerations" would be good and saying e.g. that where the scheme specific part is likely to be privacy sensitive, then that ought be documented and ways of minimising privacy-unfriendliness ought be documented. - 3.2, all except the last para: I personally think the SHOULDs here are bogus. Why does it matter at all, really? In any case, even if you maintain it matters, I'd suggest adding a bit saying that even minor deployment is a reasonable justification for going against the SHOULDs. If that's not likely to garner immediate consensus, as I suspect, then I'll not insist - we can drop the topic and leave it to folks registering new schemes to continue to battle the URI police:-( - 3.2, last para: I'd suggest moving this quite reasonable constraint away from the rest of this section. - 3.6, 2nd para: I don't think you've quite said what you mean here. "As restrictive as possible" could favour "all octets are U+00A2" - that is very restrictive, but would be problematic for many parsers I guess. (The U+00A2 value has no specific significance.) I think what you meant to say was that the scheme specification SHOULD be as close as possible to (or deviate as little as possible from) what is allowed in 3986. - 3.8: (very nitty nit:-) com.example.info isn't a good choice as both com and info are gTLDs which may confuse some reader. I'd suggest com.example.mything or similar. - 3.8: I'm not sure, but are you really saying here that the these scheme, after you take away the rightmost component, ought be in the public suffix list? If so, that might actually be good guidance as com.example.a.b.c.d is much more likely to suffer bitrot over time I'd say. (Compared to com.example.abcd I mean.) - 7.3, 1st para: it'd have been nice if you could have avoided IESG action being required for some details (e.g. a change of contact address from a@example.com to b@example.com), but I guess that might be too tricky to get right in text, so ok. - I agree with Ben's comment wrt loads of SHOULDs |
2015-04-07
|
05 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell |
2015-04-07
|
05 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard |
2015-04-07
|
05 | Alia Atlas | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alia Atlas |
2015-04-06
|
05 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins |
2015-04-06
|
05 | Terry Manderson | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Terry Manderson |
2015-04-06
|
05 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot comment] I am curious how the expert review required in the document interacts with bona-fide standards actions. There's already an ongoing discussion on that, … [Ballot comment] I am curious how the expert review required in the document interacts with bona-fide standards actions. There's already an ongoing discussion on that, and Barry has noted it in his on comments, so I will leave this as a comment. In particular I wonder if the "On receipt of a registration request" section of 7.2 should be different if the request was part of an IETF/IESG reviewed and approved action in the first place. There are a lot of SHOULDs in this document. I wonder how an expert reviewer is supposed to interpret deviations from SHOULD level requirements. This is especially true in statements like "... SHOULD include clear security considerations or explain [why not]". The expert's life might be easier if there was some text encouraging that deviations from SHOULDs be accompanied by an explanation. |
2015-04-06
|
05 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ben Campbell |
2015-04-06
|
05 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot comment] There's ongoing discussion about the effect this has on existing registered schemes, particularly "urn:", including concern that this constrains other working groups (such … [Ballot comment] There's ongoing discussion about the effect this has on existing registered schemes, particularly "urn:", including concern that this constrains other working groups (such as urnbis) inappropriately. I will hold back the final approval until that's sorted out. |
2015-04-06
|
05 | Barry Leiba | Ballot comment text updated for Barry Leiba |
2015-04-06
|
05 | Barry Leiba | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead |
2015-04-02
|
05 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Wassim Haddad |
2015-04-02
|
05 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Wassim Haddad |
2015-04-02
|
05 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2015-03-27
|
05 | Barry Leiba | Ballot has been issued |
2015-03-27
|
05 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
2015-03-27
|
05 | Barry Leiba | Created "Approve" ballot |
2015-03-27
|
05 | Dave Thaler | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA - Not OK |
2015-03-27
|
05 | Dave Thaler | New version available: draft-ietf-appsawg-uri-scheme-reg-05.txt |
2015-03-12
|
04 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call |
2015-03-11
|
04 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Qin Wu. |
2015-03-11
|
04 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Not OK from IANA - Review Needed |
2015-03-11
|
04 | Pearl Liang | IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-appsawg-uri-scheme-reg-04. Authors should review the comments and/or questions below. Please report any inaccuracies and respond to any questions as soon … IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-appsawg-uri-scheme-reg-04. Authors should review the comments and/or questions below. Please report any inaccuracies and respond to any questions as soon as possible. We received the following comments/questions from the IANA's reviewer: We have questions about some of the IANA actions requested by this draft. IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are four actions which IANA must complete. First, in the Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) Schemes registry located at: http://www.iana.org/assignments/uri-schemes/ the reference for the entire registry is to be changed from RFC4395 to [ RFC-to-be ]. Second, this draft updates the registration procedures for the Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) Schemes registry to the following: "Permanent URI Schemes": (No change) Expert Review "Provisional URI Schemes": OLD: Expert Review NEW: First Come First Served "Historical URI Schemes": Expert Review ??? Question: What is the policy to designated a schema as historical? Expert Review? What if someone requests to mark a FCFS Provisional schema, how should IANA process the request? Third, also in the Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) Schemes registry located at: http://www.iana.org/assignments/uri-schemes/ the "Permanent URI Schemes", "Provisional URI Schemes", and "Historical URI Schemes" sub-registries into a single common registry. Fourth, also in the Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) Schemes registry located at: http://www.iana.org/assignments/uri-schemes/ the new, merged registry created in step three above is to have the following change: two new columns are to be added to the registry. First, an additional "Status" column containing the status (Permanent, Provisional, Historical, or Pending Review), and second an additional "Notes" column which is normally empty, but may contain notes approved by the Designated Expert. Fifth, also in the Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) Schemes registry located at: http://www.iana.org/assignments/uri-schemes/ in the new, merged registry created in step two above a new URI scheme is to be registered as follows: URI Scheme: example Template: [ as in section 8.1 of the current document ] Description: Example Status: permanent Notes: Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] Comment/Question: As this document requests a registration in an Expert Review (see RFC 5226) registry, we will initiate the required Expert Review via a separate request. Expert review will need to be completed before your document can be approved for publication as an RFC. IANA understands that these five actions are the only ones required to be completed upon approval of this document. Note: The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed. |
2015-03-11
|
04 | Barry Leiba | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2015-04-09 |
2015-03-04
|
04 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Wassim Haddad |
2015-03-04
|
04 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Wassim Haddad |
2015-03-02
|
04 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Tobias Gondrom |
2015-03-02
|
04 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Tobias Gondrom |
2015-03-01
|
04 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Qin Wu |
2015-03-01
|
04 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Qin Wu |
2015-02-26
|
04 | Amy Vezza | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2015-02-26
|
04 | Amy Vezza | The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (Guidelines and Registration Procedures for … The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (Guidelines and Registration Procedures for URI Schemes) to Best Current Practice The IESG has received a request from the Applications Area Working Group WG (appsawg) to consider the following document: - 'Guidelines and Registration Procedures for URI Schemes' as Best Current Practice The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2015-03-12. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract This document updates the guidelines and recommendations, as well as the IANA registration processes, for the definition of Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) schemes. It obsoletes RFC 4395. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-appsawg-uri-scheme-reg/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-appsawg-uri-scheme-reg/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2015-02-26
|
04 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2015-02-26
|
04 | Barry Leiba | Last call was requested |
2015-02-26
|
04 | Barry Leiba | Last call announcement was generated |
2015-02-26
|
04 | Barry Leiba | Ballot approval text was generated |
2015-02-26
|
04 | Barry Leiba | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation |
2014-11-03
|
04 | Barry Leiba | Ballot writeup was changed |
2014-11-03
|
04 | Barry Leiba | 1. Summary The document shepherd is Alexey Melnikov. The Responsible Area Director is Barry Leiba. Based on experience with registering provisional and permanent URIs, this … 1. Summary The document shepherd is Alexey Melnikov. The Responsible Area Director is Barry Leiba. Based on experience with registering provisional and permanent URIs, this document updates RFC 4395 (which was itself a BCP itself). In particular rules for provisional registrations were relaxed to make registrations easier. 2. Review and Consensus This document was reviewed by people who had to deal with URI definitions and registrations, including former Apps ADs and the current URI registration expert reviewer. The document had enough reviews. 3. Intellectual Property No IPR disclosures have been submitted and authors have indicated they are not aware of any other IPR issues. 4. Other Points The document is about IANA registrations. I believe it is detailed and well written. |
2014-11-03
|
04 | Barry Leiba | Ballot writeup was generated |
2014-11-03
|
04 | Barry Leiba | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2014-11-03
|
04 | Alexey Melnikov | 1. Summary The document shepherd is Alexey Melnikov. The Responsible Area Director is Barry Leiba. Based on experience with registering provisional and permanent URIs, this … 1. Summary The document shepherd is Alexey Melnikov. The Responsible Area Director is Barry Leiba. Based on experience with registering provisional and permanent URIs, this document updates RFC 4395 (which was itself a BCP itself). In particular rules for provisional registrations were relaxed to make registrations easier. 2. Review and Consensus This document was reviewed by people who had to deal with URI definitions and registrations, including former Apps ADs and the current URI registration expert reviewer. The document had enough reviews. 3. Intellectual Property No IPR disclosures have been submitted and authors have indicated they are not aware of any other IPR issues. 4. Other Points The document is about IANA registrations. I believe it is detailed and well written. |
2014-11-03
|
04 | Alexey Melnikov | State Change Notice email list changed to draft-ietf-appsawg-uri-scheme-reg.all@tools.ietf.org, alexey.melnikov@isode.com, appsawg-chairs@tools.ietf.org, apps-discuss@ietf.org |
2014-11-03
|
04 | Alexey Melnikov | Responsible AD changed to Barry Leiba |
2014-11-03
|
04 | Alexey Melnikov | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
2014-11-03
|
04 | Alexey Melnikov | IESG state changed to Publication Requested |
2014-11-03
|
04 | Alexey Melnikov | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2014-11-03
|
04 | Alexey Melnikov | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from Submitted to IESG for Publication |
2014-11-02
|
04 | Alexey Melnikov | Tags Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC, Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway cleared. |
2014-11-02
|
04 | Alexey Melnikov | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
2014-11-02
|
04 | Alexey Melnikov | Changed document writeup |
2014-10-20
|
04 | Dave Thaler | New version available: draft-ietf-appsawg-uri-scheme-reg-04.txt |
2014-10-10
|
03 | Dave Thaler | New version available: draft-ietf-appsawg-uri-scheme-reg-03.txt |
2014-09-21
|
02 | Murray Kucherawy | Tags Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC, Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway set. |
2014-09-19
|
02 | Murray Kucherawy | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call |
2014-08-30
|
02 | Murray Kucherawy | Correction: WGLC ends September 19, 2014. |
2014-08-30
|
02 | Murray Kucherawy | WGLC ends September 18, 2014. |
2014-08-30
|
02 | Murray Kucherawy | WGLC ends August 28, 2014. |
2014-08-28
|
02 | Alexey Melnikov | Slightly longer WGLC (3 weeks) due to holiday season and because this document has wider impact (e.g. on W3C). |
2014-08-28
|
02 | Alexey Melnikov | Tag Awaiting External Review/Resolution of Issues Raised cleared. |
2014-08-28
|
02 | Alexey Melnikov | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2014-07-26
|
02 | Dave Thaler | New version available: draft-ietf-appsawg-uri-scheme-reg-02.txt |
2014-07-21
|
01 | Murray Kucherawy | This document now replaces draft-appsawg-uri-scheme-reg, draft-thaler-appsawg-uri-scheme-reg instead of draft-thaler-appsawg-uri-scheme-reg |
2014-07-03
|
01 | Dave Thaler | New version available: draft-ietf-appsawg-uri-scheme-reg-01.txt |
2014-07-01
|
00 | Murray Kucherawy | W3C Liaison Statement sent. No deadline for reply. |
2014-07-01
|
00 | Murray Kucherawy | Tag Awaiting External Review/Resolution of Issues Raised set. |
2014-04-01
|
00 | Murray Kucherawy | Document shepherd changed to Alexey Melnikov |
2014-03-31
|
00 | Murray Kucherawy | Intended Status changed to Best Current Practice from None |
2014-03-31
|
00 | Murray Kucherawy | This document now replaces draft-thaler-appsawg-uri-scheme-reg instead of None |
2014-03-31
|
00 | Dave Thaler | New version available: draft-ietf-appsawg-uri-scheme-reg-00.txt |