Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-urlreg-procedures-04.txt

   FYI, one of the justifications for OIDs was that if the company changes e.g.
   its name, all you need to do is change the OID registration; that
   information is often "embedded" in a DNS name (like the change from
   compuserve.com to wcom.net).  

Since OIDs go with names, you should probably (i.e., "must") change
the OID as well.

(I am remembering this from about 5 years ago when I was doing
X.400/X.500 name registration for the UofMinn.  (You (collective) do
realize that these numbers are from X.500, I assume?) The policy then
as I understood it was that each numeric form went with a _specific_
alpha form.

(Of course, since most of this is arcana that was defined but never
used, many of these policies have never been tested against reality.

(Someone should check with ANSI to see if (1) I understand it and am
communicating it correctly and (2) whether it has changed.)

   There's also been some discussion again about vnd.* URL scheme names; the
   chairs of this group invite anyone who is interested to pursue the creation
   of an RFC to describe such a syntax.  We believe that our charter -- that of
   creating a registration framework and guidelines for URL scheme name
   construction -- are fulfilled in the drafts we have submitted.  

I will definitely keep an eye on the vnd.* stuff.

(BTW, I assume the people drafting realize that you _don't_ have to
reverse the components for it to work properly...?)

   Craig, I invite you to continue in our conversations on this topic -- you've
   made a significant contribution to the dialog!  

Will do.

Craig