RE: IETF tree URL registration procedure incomplete

>    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.
> 	...
> This is the first I have heard of any "uproar" over the use of "tv:."
> In my experience reviewing this issue, I've only support or
> indifference to it.  Never an "uproar."
> 
> Now, there have been questions about the RFC _process_, but those have
> nothing to do with the technical merits of the issue.

Yes, I'm talking about the process. That's why I brought this up
as a discussion point for draft-ietf-urlreg-procedures-07.txt.

Is there a required technical review, even for Informational RFCs,
if they register IETF tree URL schemes?

Larry