Internet-Drafts | 28 Sep 12:58 1999
Picon

I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-urlreg-procedures-08.txt

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Uniform Resource Locator Registration Procedures Working Group of the IETF.

	Title		: Registration Procedures for URL Scheme Names
	Author(s)	: R. Petke, I. King
	Filename	: draft-ietf-urlreg-procedures-08.txt
	Pages		: 6
	Date		: 27-Sep-99
	
This document defines the process by which new URL scheme names are
registered.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-urlreg-procedures-08.txt

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username
"anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in,
type "cd internet-drafts" and then
	"get draft-ietf-urlreg-procedures-08.txt".

A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html 
or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt

Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail.

Send a message to:
	mailserv <at> ietf.org.
In the body type:
	"FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-urlreg-procedures-08.txt".
(Continue reading)

The IESG | 27 Sep 20:47 1999
Picon

Protocol Action: Registration Procedures for URL Scheme Names to BCP


The IESG has approved publication of the following Internet-Drafts:

o Registration Procedures for URL Scheme Names 
  <draft-ietf-urlreg-procedures-08.txt> as a BCP.

o Guidelines for new URL Schemes <draft-ietf-urlreg-guide-05.txt> as an
  Informational RFC.

These documents are the product of the Uniform Resource Locator
Registration Procedures Working Group.  The IESG contact persons are
Keith Moore and Patrik Faltstrom.

 
Technical Summary

The paper specifies how to register a new scheme for URL's, and more
especially how scheme names are allocated. A registration process is
needed to ensure that the names of all such new schemes are
guaranteed not to collide.  Further, the registration process ensures
that URL schemes intended for widespread, public use are developed in
an orderly, well-specified, and public manner.

Working Group Summary

There were some discussions about if this document should also
include definitions for other trees than the IETF one. The discussion
was long, and no consensus could be reached. A descision was then
made to only talk about the IETF tree, and then "Alternative trees",
and consensus was reached.
(Continue reading)

Ian King | 27 Sep 07:03 1999
Picon

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

Ian King | 10 Sep 20:43 1999
Picon

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.  
(Continue reading)

Dan Connolly | 10 Sep 19:09 1999
Picon

DAV: and opaquelocktoken: missing from URI scheme registry

IANA,

In the course of maintaining an informal list of URI schemes[1]
I noticed that the URI Scheme registry[2] is missing entries for
DAV: and opaquelocktoken: per [WEBDAV]. Please fix.

Also... the title of [2] should be
	"Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) Schemes"
no?

  "... . It excludes those
   portions of RFC 1738 that defined the specific syntax of individual
   URL schemes; those portions will be updated as separate documents, as
   will the process for registration of new URI schemes."
	-- http://www.ics.uci.edu/pub/ietf/uri/rfc2396.txt

[1] http://www.w3.org/Addressing/schemes

[2] Uniform Resource Locators (URL) Schemes
ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/iana/assignments/url-schemes
Last Modified: Thursday, 18 February, 1999 3:58:12 PM GMT

[WEBDAV] http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2518.txt
"   This specification also defines a URI scheme for the encoding of
lock
   tokens, the opaquelocktoken URI scheme described in section 6.4.

   To ensure correct interoperation based on this specification, IANA
   must reserve the URI namespaces starting with "DAV:" and with
   "opaquelocktoken:" for use by this specification, its revisions, and
(Continue reading)

Larry Masinter | 25 Aug 19:43 1999
Picon

IETF tree URL registration procedure incomplete

(Conversation redirected to URLREG):

The recent discussion on the 'ietf <at> ietf.org' list about the 'tv' URL
makes me believe that the process described in 
draft-ietf-urlreg-procedures-07.txt for IETF tree documents isn't
adequate to insure proper review of new top level URI schemes, and also
that it assumes more editorial control by IESG of Informational
RFCs than is currently documented by RFC 2026.

As Scott Bradner wrote on the ietf list:

> in the 30 years that the RFC series has run it has always been the case
> that an independent person could get an RFC published if the RFC Editor
> frlt it was a contribution to the Internet community - I think we
> have to think very hard if we want to change this.

In the particular case of "URL schemes", the URI working group
in 1994 and the URLREG group in its many years of existance have
relied on the ability of the IESG (and not merely the RFC editor)
to exert some judgement over URL registrations contained in Informational
RFCs.

In some ways, URL schemes bear some resemblance to top level domains
in their role as a root of a naming authority and in the desire of
some organizations to 'own' the 'short name'; the uproar over a private
use of 'tv' without apparent consensus of the TV community would not be
there if the name of the URL scheme were 'directtv-tune:', as 
draft-ietf-urlreg-procedures-07.txt might propose.

The URL registration procedure document has languished for a while;
(Continue reading)

Amit Kapoor | 25 Aug 00:10 1999
Picon

Signed/Encrypted Mail URL


	While fiddling around with S/MIME and
	mailto:, it struck me that it would be
	nice to allow browsers to invoke the
	mail client to generate a signed and/or
	encrypted mail message (with appropriate
	warnings to the user).  This would be
	very useful for bill payment and delivery
	and do not force the browsers to create
	a SSL connection with the server.

	I thought of extending mailto: to do the
	same, and have already received objections
	on that..:).  I guess we can always create
	a new url for the same..

	Anyway, this message is to find out if
	anyone else is interested in this and
	what would be the best way to solve it.

	cheers-

Amit

Internet-Drafts | 13 Aug 13:01 1999
Picon

I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-urlreg-procedures-07.txt

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Uniform Resource Locator Registration Procedures Working Group of the IETF.

	Title		: Registration Procedures for URL Scheme Names
	Author(s)	: R. Petke, I. King
	Filename	: draft-ietf-urlreg-procedures-07.txt
	Pages		: 6
	Date		: 12-Aug-99
	
This document defines the process by which new URL scheme names are
registered.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-urlreg-procedures-07.txt

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username
"anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in,
type "cd internet-drafts" and then
	"get draft-ietf-urlreg-procedures-07.txt".

A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html 
or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt

Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail.

Send a message to:
	mailserv <at> ietf.org.
In the body type:
	"FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-urlreg-procedures-07.txt".
(Continue reading)

Ian King | 21 Jul 00:44 1999
Picon

vnd.* URL scheme draft

As I've previously stated, I've made some revisions to this draft pursuant
to input from many of you, and it has been available on the IETF site as
draft-king-vnd-urlscheme-01.txt.  Having heard no more comments, I intend to
send this to the IESG for last call next week.  I'll be asking for it to be
approved as a BCP document.  

(Reprise)  Why did this not actually go through the Working Group?  Because
it is not a Working Group product; rather, this document was created in
reliance on the Working Group's product(s), the URL guidelines draft and the
URL registration draft (which, I'm told, have been approved by the IESG and
await publication).  Nonetheless, this group has demonstrated an interest in
such matters, which is why I have solicited your comments.  

If you have any last minute comments on this draft, please let me know.  --
Ian

It's amazing what you can accomplish when no one cares who gets the credit.
-- Don James
Ian King, QA Lead / Internet Bill Delivery & Payment \ Microsoft Corporation

Ian King | 16 Jul 17:23 1999
Picon

WG activity for IETF 45

The Working Group did not hold a meeting at IETF 45.  I spoke with the Area
Director and learned that both of the group's documents have been approved
by the IESG and submitted to the RFC Editor for publication.  

You can't be a real country unless you have a beer and an airline.  It helps
if you have some kind of a football team, or some nuclear weapons, but at
the very least you need a beer.   -- Frank Zappa

Ian King | 29 Jun 01:38 1999
Picon

draft-king-vnd-urlscheme-01.txt

I sent some mail out about this draft back during the "worm scare", but
didn't include the draft for that reason.  It's now available in the I-D
directory, and I'm soliciting any feedback you may have.  TIA -- Ian

It's amazing what you can accomplish when no one cares who gets the credit.
-- Don James
Ian King, QA Lead / Internet Bill Delivery & Payment \ Microsoft Corporation


Gmane