The 'leaptofrogans' URI Scheme
draft-op3ft-leaptofrogans-uri-scheme-07

[Ballot comment]
I personally have some concerns about some of the frogans technologies (mainly around the International Frogans Address Pattern (IFAP) bits), but that has nothing to do with this document.
No objections, no comments.

[Ballot discuss]
The text in Section 5 doesn't seem appropriate to me. I think the requirements from RFC 5378 that are relevant here are the ones in Section 5.8 of that document, not Section 3.4. The rights to reproduce the trademark in the document are already fully described in RFC 5378 Section 5.3; making a grant of rights here in the text of this document that is both narrower and broader than the language in RFC 5378 seems problematic. Also, I'm not sure that the IETF IPR policies extend to cover "rights to use the scheme name in ... Internet protocols" (if that is read to mean protocols on the wire). I think the appropriate thing to do would be to delete Section 5 and, if the holders of the trademark are willing, to file a disclosure in accordance with BCP 79. I've cc'ed the IETF legal counsel on this mail so he can chime in on the discussion if necessary.

[Ballot comment]
I don't think publication of this document in the IETF series is appropriate (as registration policy is Expert Review only). I'm not apposed to the publication of this doc in there RFC series in general if a stable reference is appreciated by the Experts, however, I don't think IETF-wide and IESG reviews are needed for this doc.

[Ballot comment]
I'm surprised to find §5 in an IETF stream document. I wonder if this is too close to the case of including additional licensing information in a draft, which we generally try to avoid. (This is mostly to make sure it's on Alexey's radar; if he thinks it's okay to include this, I can live with it.)

Otherwise, I have just a few mostly editorial comments:

§1.1: "This is just like instant messaging, which was
not intended to and did not replace E-mail."

"just like" seems overstated. I suggest "is analogous to", or something to that effect.

§1.2: This document is being published by the IETF, isn't it? (that is, in the IETF stream?) If so, it seems a little odd to find the "About the OP3FT" text.

§2:
- "enabling end users to easily go from one layer to another, in both directions."
I'm not sure what that means. I suspect it means going from one reader/browser application to another. But I think a lot of people familiar with IETF protocols will think it means going from one network layer to another. (e.g. application to transport).

- "As regards Frogans as a medium, in the outgoing direction, FSDL
enables Frogans site publishers to include in their Frogans sites
way-out buttons enabling end users to launch their usual Web browser
on a given Web page, or to launch their usual E-mail client with a
given E-mail address."

That's hard to parse.

[Ballot discuss]
Thanks to the authors for a well-written and clear document.

I have a little bit of confusion about the address resolution scheme mentioned
in this document.

In section 1.1, The document says:

>  Frogans is a medium for publishing content and services on the
>  Internet.  From its inception in 1999, the medium was designed as a
>  generic software layer running on top of the original Internet
>  infrastructure, i.e. the TCP and IP protocols and the Domain Name
>  System (DNS)

I'm taking particular note of the mention of DNS here.

Further down in this section, it then says:

>  o  A registry, called the Frogans Core Registry (FCR), that contains
>    all Frogans addresses registered by Frogans site publishers.  The
>    registry operator, called the FCR Operator, ensures the resolution
>    of Frogans addresses when end users enter them in Frogans Player.

This implies that conversion from a Frogans address to an IP address is handled
by the FCR rather than by DNS, although this isn't spelled out. On the other
hand, this is the only part of the system that obviously uses a name-to-address
resolution mechanism, so I'm left wondering whether there is any DNS aspect to
this resolution.

The reason I ask is that the current encoding scheme, which encodes the
site-name as (what would in DNS be called) URL-escaped U-labels, is rather out
of sync with other URL schemes, which use Punycode for host identifiers. If
these URIs aren't used by DNS, that's fine -- but if they are, then I have some
follow-up actions to suggest.

Thanks!

[Ballot comment]
I also have a couple of editorial nits, below, that the authors may wish to
address before the document progresses further.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

§1.1:

>  As part of its mission, the OP3FT develops and releases technical
>  specifications, reference implementations (including Frogans Player),
>  and various policies which define the rights and responsibilities of
>  all stakeholders involved in the technology worldwide.

Nit: "...policies that define..."(or "...policies, which define..."

Note that these two options have different meanings: choose the first if the
list of things that the polices do is exhaustive, and choose the second if it
is merely an example of some of the things that the policies do.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

§2:

>  (the scheme of the URI can be either
>  'http', 'https', or 'mailto').

Nit: "...can be any of..."

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-op3ft-leaptofrogans-uri-scheme-03. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

The IANA Functions Operator understands that upon approval of this document, there is a single action to complete.

In the Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) Schemes registry located at

https://www.iana.org/assignments/uri-schemes/

a single new URI scheme is to be registered:

URI Scheme: leaptofrogans
Template: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Description: Frogans
Status: permanant
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]
Notes:

As this document requests registration in an Expert Review (see RFC 8126) registry, we will initiate the required Expert Review via a separate request.

Note:  The actios requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed.

Thank you,

Amanda Baber
Lead IANA Services Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2018-11-13):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: alexey.melnikov@isode.com, draft-op3ft-leaptofrogans-uri-scheme@ietf.org, stpeter@mozilla.com
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (The 'leaptofrogans' URI Scheme) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider the
following document: - 'The 'leaptofrogans' URI Scheme'
  as Informational RFC

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 2018-11-13. 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 describes the 'leaptofrogans' Uniform Resource
  Identifier (URI) scheme, which enables applications to launch Frogans
  Player on a given Frogans site.  Frogans is a medium for publishing
  content and services on the Internet, defined as a generic software
  layer on the Internet.  Frogans Player is software enabling end users
  to browse Frogans sites.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-op3ft-leaptofrogans-uri-scheme/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-op3ft-leaptofrogans-uri-scheme/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up.

Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?

  Informational.

Why
is this the proper type of RFC?

  The document specifies the URI scheme definition
  to enable registration of a permanent scheme, for
  which the registration policy is Expert Review; thus
  IETF consensus is not necessary.

Is this type of RFC indicated in the
title page header?

  Yes.

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary

  This document describes the 'leaptofrogans' Uniform Resource
  Identifier (URI) scheme, which enables applications to launch Frogans
  Player on a given Frogans site.  Frogans is a medium for publishing
  content and services on the Internet, defined as a generic software
  layer on the Internet.  Frogans Player is software enabling end users
  to browse Frogans sites.

Working Group Summary

  This document is not the product of a working group.

Document Quality

  The document addresses the requirements of RFC 7595 for
  registration of a permanent URI scheme.  Expert Review was
  requested on the URI-Review list 2018-09-14; the primary
  feedback concerned handling of characters outside the ASCII
  range.  As a result, the recommended procedures were brought
  in line with percent-encoding rules from RFC 3986, as reflected
  in version -03 of draft-op3ft-leaptofrogans-uri-scheme.

Personnel

  The Document Shepherd is Peter Saint-Andre and the
  Responsible Area Director is Alexey Melnikov.

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd.  If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
the IESG.

  During review of version -03 of draft-op3ft-leaptofrogans-uri-scheme,
  the Document Shepherd raised two small issues with the authors: (a)
  it might be best to retain Section 3 (instead of asking the RFC Editor to
  remove it) and (b) it seems possible for an unofficial application to be
  used in launching Frogans sites, which could route around a security
  policy mentioned in Section 7 according to which Frogans Player
  "must always display the real Frogans address contained in the URI".
  In the opinion of the Document Shepherd, the authors can consider
  this feedback along with any other IETF Last Call feedback.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

  The document was reviewed by experts on the URI-Review list, and
  modified as described above.  The Document Shepherd does not have
  concerns about the depth of review.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
took place.

  In accordance with RFC 7595, expert review occurred on the URI-Review
  discussion list, as described above.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the
IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable
with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really
is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and
has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
concerns here.

  Two small concerns are mentioned under (3) above.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

  Although no IPR disclosures have been filed, the document notes
  that the OP3FT (a non-profit organization that acts as a steward of
  Frogans technologies) grants to the IETF Trust a perpetual license to use
  the "Frogans" trademark as part of the scheme name.

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others
being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? 

  This document is not the product of a working group.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate
email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a
separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

  No appeals have been threatened.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

  The ID Nits tool reveals no issues.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

  The document received expert review on the URI-Review list and
  feedback was incorporated.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

  Yes.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative
references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

  There are no such references.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in
the Last Call procedure.

  The document makes the following normative reference:

  [IFAP]    OP3FT, "International Frogans Address Pattern",
                Version 1.1, ISBN 978-2-37313-000-3, November 2014,
                .

  Given that the published RFC will have a status of Informational,
  a normative reference to a non-IETF specification might be
  problematic; however, the IESG might need to consider whether
  OP3FT is to be considered a recognized standards body.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not
listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the
part of the document where the relationship of this document to the
other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document,
explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

  This document does not change the status of any existing RFC.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes
are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

  The Document Shepherd has reviewed the IANA Considerations
  section of the specification and believes it is consistent with the
  requirements of RFC 7595.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find
useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

  No new registries are requested.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

  The ABNF definitions includes two rules (frogans-address
  and pct-encoded-frogans-address) that are not defined in terms
  of ABNF but instead are described in prose, with reference to a
  formal definition in the "International Frogans Address Pattern"
  (IFAP) specification published by OP3FT.  Although this does not
  appear to be a problem (and the IFAP specification is thorough),
  reviewers should be aware of the external citation.