Disagreement between guidelines draft and URI draft

I've already raised this with Larry Masinter, and I'm bringing it to the
entire group's attention to be sure that we have consensus that we're
resolving this the right way.  

In 2.1.1 of draft-ietf-urlreg-guide-02.txt, Larry talks about '://' as a
"holy sequence" used by many schemes to indicate a top level (where
meaningful).  However, in section 3.0 of draft-fielding-uri-syntax-04, the
sequence '//' is reserved as a component of the "authority" element; IMHO
the definition of the authority element clarifies the issue of whether or
not it's appropriate to use '//'.  (That draft also separately defines the
use of ':', rather than rolling that in with '//'.)  
So, is there any objection to carrying the URI-draft reference over to the
URL guidelines draft?  Larry is on vacation until 8/12, but Rich Petke has
the 'master' of the guidelines draft, and can make this change before the
draft deadline if there is consensus.  
When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.  
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ian King, Test Lead <[email protected]>
Electronic Bill Presentment & Payment
MICROSOFT CORPORATION