headers
Christopher R. Hertel | 3 Jan 2005 20:58

URI registration process.


I posted a question to the old IETF list...

I heard a while back that there might be a new process for registering URI
schemes.  I've been working--for a few years now--on an Internet Draft for
the SMB URI scheme (implemented by Thursby, Apple, jCIFS, and in Samba's
libsmbclient).

What is the current process?

Chris -)-----

--

-- 
"Implementing CIFS - the Common Internet FileSystem" ISBN: 013047116X
Samba Team -- http://www.samba.org/     -)-----   Christopher R. Hertel
jCIFS Team -- http://jcifs.samba.org/   -)-----   ubiqx development, uninq.
ubiqx Team -- http://www.ubiqx.org/     -)-----   crh <at> ubiqx.mn.org
OnLineBook -- http://ubiqx.org/cifs/    -)-----   crh <at> ubiqx.org
Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
Christopher R. Hertel | 3 Jan 2005 21:52

Re: URI registration process.


Adam,

Thanks for your message.  This is what I've been doing, for a while now, 
but I heard rumors that there would be a new process for registering URI 
schemes... possibly via the W3C.  Those were rumors, of course.

Thanks again.

Chris -)-----

On Mon, Jan 03, 2005 at 03:24:48PM -0500, Adam Atlas wrote:
> The procedure for registering URI schemes is documented in RFC 2717 - 
> <http://ietf.org/rfc/rfc2717> . See, especially, 3.2, 4.1 (the IETF 
> tree is still the only one). I haven't found any other RFCs that 
> obsolete it, so I guess it's the currently accepted best practice.
> 
> The procedure for submitting a document as an Internet-Draft as a 
> proposed RFC is documented in RFC 2223 - <http://ietf.org/rfc/rfc2223> 
> . The introduction mentions "Memos proposed to be RFCs may be submitted 
> by anyone."
> 
> As far as I can tell, you can just write up your document and submit it 
> to the RFC Editor (rfc-editor <at> isi.edu) for review. But if you want it 
> to go through the Internet-Draft process within the IETF, it seems you 
> need to be part of one of their working groups. Though it says that if 
> you submit something directly to the RFC Editor, they might refer you 
> to a relevant WG if one exists. I'm not certain (I've never gone 
> through the process), but I hope this helps.
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Tony Hansen | 3 Jan 2005 22:47
Picon
Favicon

Re: URI registration process.


See draft-hansen-2717bis-2718bis-uri-guidelines-01.txt for the 
replacement to the URI registration process. It is just about to go 
through the last call process, so will hopefully be published in a few 
months. The new process is much simpler than the old process.

	Tony Hansen
	tony <at> att.com

Christopher R. Hertel wrote:
> Adam,
> 
> Thanks for your message.  This is what I've been doing, for a while now, 
> but I heard rumors that there would be a new process for registering URI 
> schemes... possibly via the W3C.  Those were rumors, of course.
> 
> Thanks again.
> 
> Chris -)-----
> 
> 
> On Mon, Jan 03, 2005 at 03:24:48PM -0500, Adam Atlas wrote:
> 
>>The procedure for registering URI schemes is documented in RFC 2717 - 
>><http://ietf.org/rfc/rfc2717> . See, especially, 3.2, 4.1 (the IETF 
>>tree is still the only one). I haven't found any other RFCs that 
>>obsolete it, so I guess it's the currently accepted best practice.
>>
>>The procedure for submitting a document as an Internet-Draft as a 
>>proposed RFC is documented in RFC 2223 - <http://ietf.org/rfc/rfc2223>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Frank Ellermann | 4 Jan 2005 00:05
Picon
Picon

Re: I-D ACTION:draft-hoffman-ftp-uri-04.txt


Internet-Drafts <at> ietf.org wrote:

>         Title           : The ftp URI Scheme
>         Author(s)       : P. Hoffman
>         Filename        : draft-hoffman-ftp-uri-04.txt
>         Pages           : 6
>         Date            : 2005-1-3
[...]
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hoffman-ftp-uri-04.txt

Is that the same as before ?  It still has...

|  ALUN'S CONCERN
|
|  email addresses can be harvested

...instead of a complete sentence in "security considerations".
The news+nntp draft also doesn't reflect the recent discussions.

WAIS and prospero should be ready, they say that nobody uses it
today.  Gopher and telnet are apparently also ready.  The...

| Historical note: The Gopher protocol was widely implemented
| in the early 1990s, but few Gopher servers are in use today.

...is true, but the URL scheme is still very useful for other
protocols.  Bye, Frank
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
McDonald, Ira | 4 Jan 2005 00:19
Favicon

RE: URI registration process.


Hi Chris,

The RFC queue delay in publication is currently somewhere between
8 and 16 months.  And last call and IESG decision is several more
months.

For this calendar year (2005), RFC 2717 is the URI registration
process, for better or worse.

Cheers,
- Ira

PS - Note that there is potential overlap in Paul Hoffman's
revision of 'file' URI scheme (or Larry Masinter's, if he
decides to go ahead with it) with 'smb' scheme for UNC names.

Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
Blue Roof Music / High North Inc
PO Box 221  Grand Marais, MI  49839
phone: +1-906-494-2434
email: imcdonald <at> sharplabs.com

-----Original Message-----
From: uri-request <at> w3.org [mailto:uri-request <at> w3.org]On Behalf Of Tony
Hansen
Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 4:48 PM
To: Christopher R. Hertel; Adam Atlas
Cc: uri <at> w3.org
Subject: Re: URI registration process.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 501 comments |
headers
Christopher R. Hertel | 4 Jan 2005 00:30

Re: URI registration process.


On Mon, Jan 03, 2005 at 03:19:29PM -0800, McDonald, Ira wrote:
> Hi Chris,
> 
> The RFC queue delay in publication is currently somewhere between
> 8 and 16 months.  And last call and IESG decision is several more
> months.
> 
> For this calendar year (2005), RFC 2717 is the URI registration
> process, for better or worse.

Thanks.

Hmmm... so by the time mine is ready to go the rules will have changed?  
:)

> PS - Note that there is potential overlap in Paul Hoffman's
> revision of 'file' URI scheme (or Larry Masinter's, if he
> decides to go ahead with it) with 'smb' scheme for UNC names.

I'll look, but the SMB scheme is already in use and covers things like
RFC1001/1002 NBT semantics, NT Domain authentication, and the "Browse
Service" service location protocol.  I doubt that a general-purpose 'file'
scheme is going to cover those aspects of the protocol.  :)

Thanks again!

Chris -)-----

--

--
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 501 comments |
headers
Frank Ellermann | 4 Jan 2005 00:32
Picon
Picon

Re: I-D ACTION:draft-hoffman-file-uri-03.txt


Internet-Drafts <at> ietf.org wrote:

>         Title           : The file URI Scheme
>         Author(s)       : P. Hoffman
>         Filename        : draft-hoffman-file-uri-03.txt
>         Pages           : 6
>         Date            : 2005-1-3
[...]
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hoffman-file-uri-03.txt

This draft says:

| On systems running some versions of Microsoft Windows, the
| local drive specification is sometimes preceded by a "/"
| character.  Thus,  for a file called "example.ini" in the
| "windows" directory on the "c:" drive, the URL might be:
|
| file:///c:/windows/example.ini

That's also true for OS/2, incl. my IBM OS/2 Warp 3, which has
nothing to do with Microsoft.  For some obscure reasons Lynx
insists on an explicit file://localhost/ instead of file:/// -
Lynx interprets the latter as some kind of ftp: URL (claiming
that this is a Mosaic feature, please don't ask me what's that
about, I've no idea ;-)
                           Bye, Frank
Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
Adam Atlas | 3 Jan 2005 21:24

Re: URI registration process.


The procedure for registering URI schemes is documented in RFC 2717 - 
<http://ietf.org/rfc/rfc2717> . See, especially, 3.2, 4.1 (the IETF 
tree is still the only one). I haven't found any other RFCs that 
obsolete it, so I guess it's the currently accepted best practice.

The procedure for submitting a document as an Internet-Draft as a 
proposed RFC is documented in RFC 2223 - <http://ietf.org/rfc/rfc2223> 
.. The introduction mentions "Memos proposed to be RFCs may be submitted 
by anyone."

As far as I can tell, you can just write up your document and submit it 
to the RFC Editor (rfc-editor <at> isi.edu) for review. But if you want it 
to go through the Internet-Draft process within the IETF, it seems you 
need to be part of one of their working groups. Though it says that if 
you submit something directly to the RFC Editor, they might refer you 
to a relevant WG if one exists. I'm not certain (I've never gone 
through the process), but I hope this helps.

- Adam

On Jan 3, 2005, at 2:58 PM, thus spake Christopher R. Hertel:

>
> I posted a question to the old IETF list...
>
> I heard a while back that there might be a new process for registering 
> URI
> schemes.  I've been working--for a few years now--on an Internet Draft 
> for
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Graham Klyne | 4 Jan 2005 10:48

Re: URI registration process.


At 17:30 03/01/05 -0600, Christopher R. Hertel wrote:
> > For this calendar year (2005), RFC 2717 is the URI registration
> > process, for better or worse.
>
>Thanks.
>
>Hmmm... so by the time mine is ready to go the rules will have changed?
>:)

In my experience, the IESG apply the rules sensibly and reasonably in times 
of transition.  Far more important, I think, is that your proposal conforms 
to the spirit and requirements of what a URI should be, which is what 
public review is intended to confirm.

#g

------------
Graham Klyne
For email:
http://www.ninebynine.org/#Contact
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Ted Hardie | 4 Jan 2005 16:43

RE: URI registration process.


Howdy,
	Though this does vary, the IESG does try to follow
procedure documents once they have been approved.  Since
documents should not change in substance once approved,
this is usually safe.  IANA registries do complicate this (since
IANA must agree), but I think in this case that we can assume
once the community agrees to the procedures and the
IESG completes its review we'll be able to use new procedures.
		regards,
			Ted Hardie

At 3:19 PM -0800 1/3/05, McDonald, Ira wrote:
>Hi Chris,
>
>The RFC queue delay in publication is currently somewhere between
>8 and 16 months.  And last call and IESG decision is several more
>months.
>
>For this calendar year (2005), RFC 2717 is the URI registration
>process, for better or worse.
>
>Cheers,
>- Ira
>
>PS - Note that there is potential overlap in Paul Hoffman's
>revision of 'file' URI scheme (or Larry Masinter's, if he
>decides to go ahead with it) with 'smb' scheme for UNC names.
>
>Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane