4395bis irireg Tony Hansen, Larry Masinter, Ted Hardie IETF 82, Nov 16, 2011.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Doi> DOI and URI specifications IDF Strategy meeting Bologna 2005.
Advertisements

IETF 71 Philadelphia - ENUM IANA Registration of Enumservices: Guide, Template and IANA Considerations draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide-08 B. Hoeneisen.
Httpbis IETF 721 RFC2616bis Draft Overview IETF 72, Dublin Julian Reschke Mailing List: Jabber:
The Historical Investigation The York School
Copyright © 2003 Colin Perkins SDP Specification Update Colin Perkins
XML Configuration Access Protocol (XCAP) Jonathan Rosenberg dynamicsoft.
Design Plans CSCI102 - Systems ITCS905 - Systems MCS Systems.
OneM2M-MP Data_Model_Repository Establishing Data Model Repository for oneM2M Group Name: Method and Procedure Sub-commitee Source: WG3 chair.
Policy Implementation and Experience Report Leslie Nobile.
Rfc2141bis, rfc3406bis and the ISBN + NBN namespaces IETF 83, Paris, France Juha Hakala The National Library of Finland.
Advanced Business Communication Spring Advanced Business Communication Spring 2012 Overview Last week we talked about policy and procedure documents.
JavaScript, Fourth Edition
ENUM Implementation Experiences Lawrence Conroy Roke Manor Research
Federal XML Naming and Design Rules and Guidelines Mark Crawford.
European Endeavor Users Group Meeting Helsinki, Sept Esa-Pekka Keskitalo, System Analyst Helsinki University Library OpenURL 1.0.
Submission February 2014 Slide 1 IEEE 802 Response to FDIS comments on IEEE 802.1AR 20 March 2014 Authors: NameCompanyPhone .
July 27, 2009IETF NEA Meeting1 NEA Working Group IETF 75 Co-chairs: Steve Hanna
XCAP Needed Diffs Jonathan Rosenberg Cisco Systems.
SIEVE Mail Filtering WG IETF 69, Chicago WG Chairs: Cyrus Daboo, Alexey Melnikov Mailing List: Jabber:
What makes for a quality RFC? An invited talk to the MPLS WG Adrian Farrel IETF-89 London, March 2014.
March 15, 2005 IETF #62 Minneapolis1 EAP Discovery draft-adrangi-eap-network-discovery-10.txt Farid Adrangi ( )
IETF63 - enum WG1 ENUM validation architecture & friends Alex Mayrhofer enum.at / 3.4.e164.arpa Bernie Höneisen SWITCH.
Discussion of Unpaid Claim Estimate Standard  Raji Bhagavatula  Mary Frances Miller  Jason Russ November 13, 2006 CAS Annual Meeting San Francisco,
1 CS Tutorial 5 Frid. Oct 23, 2009 Design Document Tutorial.
Disman – IETF 56 Alarm MIB Sharon Chisholm Dan Romascanu
SIEVE Mail Filtering WG IETF 65, Dallas WG Chairs: Cyrus Daboo, Alexey Melnikov Mailing List: Jabber:
RTSP to Draft Standard draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc2236bis-02.txt Authors: Henning Schulzrinne, Anup Rao, Robert Lanphier, Magnus Westerlund.
IEEE MEDIA INDEPENDENT HANDOVER DCN: Title: IETF Liaison Report Date Submitted: July 20, 2006 Presented at IEEE.
SIP working group IETF#70 Essential corrections Keith Drage.
3777 drp 1 Arbiter Report: RFC 3777 Dispute Resolution Jan Scott Bradner 12 March 2008.
Caller Prefs and Friends Jonathan Rosenberg dynamicsoft.
Abierman-netconf-mar07 1 NETCONF WG 68 th IETF Prague, CZ March 19, 2007.
BESS WG2015-Mar-251 PMSI Tunnel Attribute Flags: IANA Considerations RFC6514 defines PMSI Tunnel Attribute (PTA) Carried in I/S-PMSI and Leaf A-D routes.
The original Internationalized Domain Name (IDN) WG set the requirements for international characters in domain names in RFC 3454, RFC3490, RFC3491 and.
Proposals for a New IETF Standards Track draft-ietf-newtrk-proposals-00.txt David Black Brian Carpenter IETF 60.
OMA Presence 1.0 Presence attribute, composition issues Krisztián Kiss
Objective: To describe the evolution of the Internet and the Web. Explain the need for web standards. Describe universal design. Identify benefits of accessible.
Slide 1 July 2006, Montreal, QuebecIETF DNSEXT 2929bis Donald E. Eastlake 3 rd
1 © 2001, Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. VVT _05_2001_c1 Resource Priority Header draft-ietf-sip-resource-priority-05 James M Polk Henning.
GRUU Jonathan Rosenberg Cisco Systems. Changes in -06 Editorial as a result of RFC-ED early copy experiment.
Slide title In CAPITALS 50 pt Slide subtitle 32 pt RTSP draft-ietf-mmusic-rfc2396bis-10 Magnus Westerlund Co-auhtors: Henning Schulzrinne, Rob Lanphier,
MSRP Again! draft-ietf-simple-message- session-09.
1 Header Compression over IPsec (HCoIPsec) Emre Ertekin, Christos Christou, Rohan Jasani {
NEMO Basic Support update IETF 61. Status IANA assignments done Very close to AUTH48 call Some issues raised recently We need to figure out if we want.
Caller Preferences Jonathan Rosenberg dynamicsoft.
DC Architecture WG meeting Wednesday Seminar Room: 5205 (2nd Floor)
Portable Symmetric Key Container (PSKC) Mingliang Pei Philip Hoyer Dec. 3, th IETF, Vancouver.
Slide 1 August 2005, Paris, FranceIETF DNSEXT 2929bis etc. Donald E. Eastlake 3 rd
Trust Anchor Update Requirements for DNSSEC Russ Mundy for the editors Steve Crocker, Howard Eland, Russ Mundy.
Slide 1 November 2005, Vancouver, BCIETF DNSEXT 2929bis etc. Donald E. Eastlake 3 rd
Globally Identifiable Number (GIN) Registration Adam Roach draft-martini-roach-gin-01 IETF 77 – Anaheim, CA, USA March 22, 2010.
60 Draft Policy ARIN NRPM 4 (IPv4) Policy Cleanup.
Nokia Internal Use Only Outline Status of the PAWS protocol document Open Issues – Review extensibility and IANA registries.
SDP draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-new-21.txt Colin Perkins.
KeyProv PSKC Specification Mingliang Pei Authors: P. Hoyer, M. Pei and S. Machani 73 nd IETF meeting, Minneapolis, Nov
PANA Issues and Resolutions
draft-ietf-iri-rfc4395bis-irireg
draft-ietf-simple-message-session-09
IKEv2 Mobility and Multihoming Protocol (MOBIKE)
IETF 65 Calsify WG March 21, 2006 Dallas, TX.
CNA Processes CVE Team.
IETF68 Mini-BOF MIB-Doctor-Sponsored MIB Document Templates
Migration-Issues-xx Where it’s been and might be going
Response to Comments Received on the a PAR and CSD
Updates to Draft Specification for DTN TCPCLv4
STIR WG IETF-100 PASSPorT Extension for Resource-Priority Authorization (draft-ietf-stir-rph-01) November, 2017 Ray P. Singh, Martin Dolly, Subir Das,
WebDAV Design Overview
BPSec: AD Review Comments and Responses
IETF 87 DHC WG Berlin, Germany Thursday, 1 August, 2013
Presentation transcript:

4395bis irireg Tony Hansen, Larry Masinter, Ted Hardie IETF 82, Nov 16, 2011

MAJOR #70RFC 2119 language in Section 3.1 of 4395bis #79Change controller for provisional registrations #97Provisional schemes de-asssignment #98Registry format #99New schemes should make sure query part uses UTF-8 #100Reduce review period to two weeks? #106Restore text about reverse domain name use for private URI/IRI schemes

#70 RFC 2119 language in Section 3.1 of 4395bis §3.1 “New URI/IRI schemes SHOULD have clear utility to the broad Internet community, beyond that” – Change SHOULD to MUST ? Proposal: no change Allows registration of more private schema

#79 Change controller for provisional registrations §6.4 Author/Change controller: “Person (including contact information) authorized to change this, if a provisional registration.” Proposal: “Group, person or people (including contact information) authorized to change this.

#97 Provisional schemes de- asssignment Should URI/IRI schemes be allowed to be de- assigned by their registrants? Proposal: no change – Instead of de-assignment, reassign to “historic”

#98 Registry format in the IANA considerations section of 4395bis include the description of the registry – Claims that it is “required by RFC 5226” Proposal: no change 1.In my reading of 5226 no such language is required 2.It’s pretty obvious that we’re using name+value pairs

#99 New schemes should make sure query part uses UTF-8 Currently, http(s): schemes handle the query part with reference to the "document charset", whereas other schemes such as mailto: handle query parts based on UTF-8. We should say that new schemes should/must choose the later. (It's very difficult to introduce exceptions for new schemes.) Proposal: no change – The query part is not part of the scheme definition

#100 Reduce review period to two weeks? “It works on another list with the same expert. IANA or expert can always bounce a request if they feel that it needs more tuning” Proposal: ???? What is consensus?

#73 Decide on organization-specific schemes #106 Restore text about reverse domain name use for private URI/IRI schemes #73: remove the text on using reverse domain name registrations #106: restore the removed text Note: there is at least one such registration now, com-eventbrite-attendee Proposal: no change

MINOR #60Should we recommend using different ABNF rule names to clarify escaping? #64Disallow registration of URI schemes with generic names 'uri', 'url', etc. #69Several issues in Introduction of 4395bis #73Decide on organization-specific schemes #74Resolving ambiguous registrations #75Historical registrations and RFC 2119 lang #77Change controller in IESG-approved schemes specs #82Use of ":" in scheme specs #83Create registration revision field in the template #84No retroactivity

#60 Should we recommend using different ABNF rule names to clarify escaping “When defining an URI/IRI scheme, in many cases rule names are taken from an existing spec, and prose explains that certain characters have to be escaped. It may be helpful to recommend explicitly changing rule names so that it is clear that the escaped (in the scheme spec) and unescaped (in the preexisting protocol spec) rules are not exactly the same.” Proposal: ???? What is consensus?

#64 Disallow registration of URI schemes with generic names 'uri', 'url', etc. §3.8: – Avoid using names that are either very general purpose or associated in the community with some other application or protocol. Avoid scheme names that are overly general or grandiose in scope (e.g., that allude to their "universal" or "standard" nature.) – Clarify by saying that such URI scheme names as, for example, 'uri', 'url', 'iri', etc. SHALL NOT be registered Proposal: Add sentence, – In particular, scheme names such as uri, url and iri MUST NOT be registered.

#69 Several issues in Introduction §1 change this sentence: – From: [RFC3987] introduced IRIs by defining a mapping between URIs and IRIs; [RFC3987bis] updates that definition, allowing an IRI to be interpreted directly without translating into a URI. – To: [RFC3987] introduced IRIs by extending the character range allowed for URIs from ASCII to Universal Character Set (UCS); [RFC3987bis] updates that definition to suit IRIs' current usage. – Reason: “I actually don't see RFC 3987 requiring an IRI to be translated to URI under any circumstances. Current implementations of IRIs, under RFC 3987, work perfectly without mapping any IRI to URI.”RFC 3987 Proposal: ???? What is consensus?

#69 Several issues in Introduction §1 change this sentence – From: reserving the term "URN" explicitly for those URIs/IRIs using the "urn" scheme name ([RFC2141]). – To: reserving the term "URN" explicitly for those URIs using the "urn" scheme name ([RFC2141]). – Reason: RFC 2141 doesn't allow 'urn' IRIs, not they exist at all. Proposal: no change Reason: statement is technically accurrate, even if 2141 didn’t call them IRIs

#74 Resolving ambiguous registrations §4: – (In the unfortunate case that there are multiple, different uses of the same scheme name, the IESG may approve a request to modify an existing entry to note the separate use.) – I don't really think this may be necessary (probably for the sake of robustness, but...). Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't know whether there are some schemes which have different usage. Proposal: no change

#75 Historical registrations and RFC 2119 lang §5: – Any scheme that is no longer in common use MAY be designated as historical – “I suppose "SHOULD" is more appropriate here. But RFC 2119 might also be inappropriate to be used here as well, and "should" may be OK as well.” Proposal: no change

#77 Change controller in IESG- approved schemes specs §6.3: – In cases where the original definition of the scheme is contained in an IESG-approved document, update of the specification also requires IESG approval. – “I suppose you should have clearly mentioned that the Standards Track document MUST have IESG as the change controller” Proposal: add parenthetical clause – “(IESG is the change controller)”

#82 Use of ":" in scheme specs §3.8 should prescribe that the ":" character should not occur in URI scheme name, as eg. in RFC erroneously referred to the “mailserver:” URI scheme, which is technically inaccurate. Proposal: Add a note along the lines of: – Note, per the syntax of URI scheme names, the “:” is not part of the scheme name.

#83 Create registration revision field in the template §6.4, registration template. Won't this be useful to add a new field "registration information" with the contents as for URN namespaces RFC3406 appendix A? – Registration Information: This is information to identify the particular version of registration information: registration version number: starting with 1, incrementing by 1 with each new version registration date: date submitted to the IANA, using the format outlined in [ISO8601]: YYYY-MM-DD Proposal: ???? What is consensus?

#84 No retroactivity The document should be clear that its recommendations don't have retroactivity; those RI schemes which weren't suited to IRIs, as being registered before it, shouldn't be used with IRIs. Proposal: ???? What is consensus?

TRIVIAL – fixed #71Typo in ABNF production → #72Another typo in ABNF production → / #76Fix reference to RFC 5378RFC 3978 → RFC 5378