RE: IETF tree URL registration procedure incomplete

I thought the general idea for allowing "Informational" documents
to describe IETF tree URLs is that the IESG might approve of
the URL as a naming mechanism, even if the thing named were not
itself Standards track. The technical review of "aol:" would not
review the AOL service or its use of keywords, but would review
the use of the 'aol' URL scheme against URL guidelines.

In this case, IESG would not review how televisions were tuned
and whether PIP and 'channel return' were useful concepts, but the
IESG might review the use of 'tv:abc' to reference the US broadcast
stream.

I believe we've meant this in discussions, as evidenced from
the discussion on this topic over the last 5 years, but it hasn't
made its way into the documents; this is something that needs
to be corrected.

In general, when an Informational RFC calls for some kind
of action on the part of IANA, there is necessarily a review
according to the rules of the IANA space being modified.
Perhaps we don't need to make a specific exception to RFC 2026.

We probably will need to deal with dispute resolution as well,
if, say, some Big Web Site Owner wants to define some alternative
meaning for 'aol:' or use it to define links with their own
referents.


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