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

Larry;

> > > How, do you think, IANA is managing collisons, identifications
> > > and interoperability of TCP port numbers free-for-all?
> 
> Don't rhetorical questions deserve rhetorical answers?

It is merely that your rhetorical answer to my essential question
is the victim of rhetorical counter-argument.

That's fine. But, mine is 

> RFC 2434 (BCP 26) identifies several different ways in which name
> and number spaces may be managed by IANA, depending on the
> characteristics of the name space. "port numbers" and "URI scheme
> names" have different characteristics and require different
> management procedures.
> 
> I cannot tell if you are disputing RFC 2434 as a best current
> practice or if you believe that port numbers and URI scheme
> names are so similar in characteristics as a name space that
> they deserve equivalent registration procedures (ask IANA
> for a URI scheme name, and IANA assigns the 'next' one?) 

If your argument, like Ian's one that URLREG WG does exist with
charters, assume the infallibility of IETF, it is bogus.

RFC 2434, of course, is wrong. Longer bits for a name space, a lot
longer than port number ones, merely means less conflict and control
regardless of whether you interpret it numbers or ASCII characters.

						Masataka Ohta