RE: IETF tree URL registration procedure incomplete

FYI: I have exchanged mail with Patrik Falstrom, the AD over URLREG, as
recently as this week, and the URLREG docs are being moved forward, albeit
not as swiftly as we might like.  The next hurdle for them is to be
re-reviewed by the Security ADs; they objected to the section on how URL
Security Considerations should be written, and I amended the procedures doc
per their recommendation, resulting in -07.  I believe that the drafts will
then be forwarded to the RFC Editor; I will continue to monitor this to
ensure that this happens, or that any other issues are promptly dealt with.


However, Larry, you raise another point: you express skepticism regarding
the process for review of Informational RFCs that describe URL schemes.  The
procedures draft specifically states that all proposed URL schemes shall be
reviewed by IESG; this was a piece of "buy-in" that we actively sought from
the Area Directors at URLREG meetings.  Reading your email as a whole, I
think you are suggesting that this won't be truly effective until these
drafts have become RFCs and are useful tools for the IESG -- if I'm not
reading you right, please correct me and we should discuss it further.  

PS: I'm holding off on asking for IESG last call on the vnd.* tree draft
(draft-king-vnd-urlscheme-01.txt) until after the URLREG docs are on their
way; as it is, the two URLREG docs were dependent on each other and the URI
drafts, and I don't think it serves anyone to create another layer of
dependency at this time.  :-)  But I'm hoping the existence of that RFC will
provide a viable and attractive alternative in situations such as tv:.  

Cheers -- Ian 

Ian King <[email protected]>
Speech Product Group
MICROSOFT CORPORATION

-----Original Message-----
From: Larry Masinter [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 1999 10:44 AM
To: Scott Bradner
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: IETF tree URL registration procedure incomplete


(Conversation redirected to URLREG):

The recent discussion on the '[email protected]' list about the 'tv' URL
makes me believe that the process described in 
draft-ietf-urlreg-procedures-07.txt for IETF tree documents isn't
adequate to insure proper review of new top level URI schemes, and also
that it assumes more editorial control by IESG of Informational
RFCs than is currently documented by RFC 2026.

As Scott Bradner wrote on the ietf list:

> in the 30 years that the RFC series has run it has always been the case
> that an independent person could get an RFC published if the RFC Editor
> frlt it was a contribution to the Internet community - I think we
> have to think very hard if we want to change this.

In the particular case of "URL schemes", the URI working group
in 1994 and the URLREG group in its many years of existance have
relied on the ability of the IESG (and not merely the RFC editor)
to exert some judgement over URL registrations contained in Informational
RFCs.

In some ways, URL schemes bear some resemblance to top level domains
in their role as a root of a naming authority and in the desire of
some organizations to 'own' the 'short name'; the uproar over a private
use of 'tv' without apparent consensus of the TV community would not be
there if the name of the URL scheme were 'directtv-tune:', as 
draft-ietf-urlreg-procedures-07.txt might propose.

The URL registration procedure document has languished for a while;
the lack of an 'approved' process and guidelines has hampered the
discussion.

Larry
-- 
http://www.parc.xerox.com/masinter