The 'tag' URI Scheme
RFC 4151

On page 6:
   Examples of tag URIs are:

      tag:timothy@hpl.hp.com,2001:web/externalHome
      tag:sandro@w3.org,2004-05:Sandro
      tag:my-ids.com,2001-09-15:TimKindberg:presentations:UBath2004-05-19
      tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-555
      tag:yaml.org,2002:int
      tag:herv%C3%A9.example.org,2004:r%C3%A9sum%C3%A9

I kind of understand why these examples are not accoring to our rules
and guidelines for examples. If we want to keep them as is, then maybe
a note as to why we do not follow the rules makes sense.

Reviewed by Joel Halpern, Gen-ART

His review:

 This draft is on the right track for publication as an Informational
 RFC, but I think it has an open issue, described in the review.

 Specifically, it is using informational publication to create a new
 URI scheme. My reading of the scheme definition documents indicates
 that informational is for use with existing schemes, and PS is to be
 used for new schemes?

 Nits: In listing the alternatives, I am sure there is a good reason
 why URNs won't work for this problem. (It may be as simple as ~they
 look confusing to humans~. Whatever the reason, shouldn't it be
 stated?

 In the security section, the discussion of malicious parties could
 use more work. I can not tell how the second sentence (using
 reputable assigning authorities) helps with the threat of someone who
 simply lies and makes up tags from a space he does not own. I
 suspect that there is an assumption about how tags get associated
 with resources that mitigates this, but I can not determine the
 assumption from this document.

  The "Further Information and Discussion of this Document" section
  needs to be deleted prior to publication as an RFC.

I believe we're following the wrong procedure for this document.  I do
not believe this document meets the criteria for URI registration
using an informational RFC.  In particular, I do not believe the
scheme is in wide use.  However I'm not willing to block on this issue
for this document because I believe this document is well written and
meets the quality we would require of a proposed standard.