General Comments on the URLReg Draft

Given that the language for the vendor and personal trees are functionally
identical, with the singular exception of the allocation of a company name,
I can find no particularly compelling reason to have two trees. Why not just
collapse them into a single tree? We can name it PV.

In addition the draft provides for a mechanism to allow for comments to be
associated with a URL registration entry. The idea being that someone could
submit a comment and if IANA approved the comment then it would be included
with the copy of the URL scheme's registration held by IANA.

	IETF Tree Registrations - In the case of an IETF tree registration
you are essentially circumventing the centrality of the RFC by saying
"everything you need to know is in the RFC oh and in this other place." I
think that is procedurally wrong. If someone has a comment of sufficient
weight to merit community review then the RFC needs to be re-issued.

	VND and Personal - IANA, as the great white bearded one has
repeatedly pointed out, can only enforce absolutely mechanical rules. They
do not, can not and will not involve themselves in any action which requires
a judgement call. Such a call is required in order to decide if a particular
comment should or should not be recorded. Additionally if the content is of
general interest to the community then it should be published as an
informational RFC. If additionally comments are merited then the RFC can be
re-issued. Let's not drag IANA to a bad place.

	Comments?

		Yaron