RE: Proposed amendment to language of draft-ietf-url-procedures

Ian;

> And what we are attempting to do, sir, is to provide the process for an IANA
> registry -- in such a manner that does not create the frenetic free-for-all
> we've seen in DNS. (I trust you are aware that the DNS situation is
> considered a "problem".)  

How, do you think, IANA is managing collisons, identifications
and interoperability of TCP port numbers free-for-all?

You said:

> > Then what do you suggest to provide collision management, identification
> and
> > interoperability in URL schemes?

DNS situation has no "problem" with regard to collision management,
identifiation nor interoperability.

Moreover, URL name space has nothing to do with that of DNS.

> I will not address your other comments.  I am always open to constructive
> suggestions on how to solve the problems within this Working Group's scope.

You seems to be believing that disbanding or rechartering of an WG
is destructive and is not an appropriate topic for the WG, which is
wrong.

That the working group scope is bogus is the constructive suggestion
for the internet protocol suites and is an appropriate topic for the
working group.

							Masataka Ohta