RE: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-urlreg-procedures-01.txt

On Thu, 21 May 1998, Ian King wrote:
> I seem to recall that there was considerable discussion about vnd, and the
> consensus was that it was redundant or actually undesirable.  Does anyone
> else want to speak up in favor of vnd?  

I may have fallen off the thread somewhere, but I rather understood the
opposite -- that vnd was agreed on as a necessary categorization.

>From the (unedited) minutes from the ietf.org proceedings for LA:

"Create three classifications of scheme names:  Standard, vendor (start with 
 (vnd."), and private (a.k.a. the NOREG scheme).  Mimic the MIME registration 
 procedures outlined in RFC 2048.

 Standard scheme names will require an RFC that documents them and change 
 control for the scheme belongs to the IESG.

 Vendor scheme names require a registration form to be completed but RFCs are 
 encouraged.  Change control of the scheme belongs to the vendor.

 Private scheme names do not even require registration."

As I read it, vnd and NOREG are not the same thing.

I think this was the breakdown that was agreed upon in LA, and it still seems
like the most viable path.


Leslie.


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

  "You can lead people to facts, but              Leslie Daigle
       you cannot make them think."               
                                                  Bunyip Information Systems
                      -- ThinkingCat              (514) 875-8611
                                                  [email protected]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------