OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

xri-comment message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: Re: [xri-comment] 'xri' URI scheme not yet registered

31.05.2011 4:26, Joseph Anthony Pasquale Holsten wrote:
> Would this IANA Considerations section be enough? Writing a full registration IETF Draft seems a liitle overkill just to register a historical scheme.
(Maybe you meant "Registration Template", not "IANA Considerations 

Should it be Historical *now*?  I would understand if XRI 3.0 was 
already published; but current spec - 2.0 - continues to use it.  Let's 
make it Permanent for now; later it will be possible to change the 
category to Historical.  In this case having an RFC won't beexcessive, 
for a permanent record.
>> IANA Considerations
>> URI scheme name.
>>    xri
>> Status.
>>    Historical
See above.
>> URI scheme syntax.
>>    See [XRISyntax2], Section 2 Syntax.
This and everything below seems OK, modulo some remarks, but please 
don't mention section names so that it is "See [XRISyntax2], Section 2"
>> URI scheme semantics.
>>    See [XRIResolution2] z
>> Encoding considerations.
>>    See [XRISyntax2], Section 2.1 Characters and Section 2.3 Transformations.
Section 2.1 only is mostly fine here; Section 2.3 may be omitted, I think.
>> Intended usage.
>>    See [XRIResolution2]
>> Applications and/or protocols that use this URI scheme name.
>>    See [XRIResolution2]
>> Interoperability considerations.
>>    See [XRISyntax2], Section 2.5 Normalization and Comparison.
Maybe, it should be "none"; at least Section 2.5 of Syntax spec. isn't Ok.
>> Security considerations
>>    See [XRISyntax2], Section 3 Security and Data Protection Considerations
>> Contact.
>>    Any volunteers?
>> Change controller.
>>    OASIS
RFC 4395 requires an Email address of Change Controller.  Which is 
>> References
>> [XRISyntax2] Reed, D., et al. "Extensible Resource Identifier (XRI) Syntax V2.0", http://docs.oasis-open.org/xri/V2.0, November 2005
>> [XRIResolution2]  Wachob, G., et al. "Extensible Resource Identifier (XRI) Resolution Version 2.0", http://docs.oasis-open.org/xri/2.0/specs/xri-resolution-V2.0.html, February 2008
Mykyta Yevstifeyev
> --
> http://josephholsten.com
> On May 27, 2011, at 12:00 PM, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
>> 27.05.2011 19:34, Will Norris wrote:
>>> err, correction.  We're in the process of registering the application/xrd+xml MIME type.  I don't think there are plans to register the xri:// URI scheme, since I believe XRI 3.0 uses standard http URLs.  Drummond (or John, etc) can correct me on that if I'm wrong.
>> Could you please refer me to the working draft of XRI 3.0 specification?  I can't find it on XRI TC web page.
>> Anyway, even though the new version is going to deprecate use of 'xri' scheme in URI mapped from XRIs, I think it will necessary to register the scheme for record, maybe in Historical category (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4395#section-4); but for now, while work on XRI 3.0 is still being made, Permanent category should be Ok (RFC 4395 allows transition between categories, so once XRI 3.0 is published, deprecating the scheme, it may be marked as historical as well).
>> Mykyta Yevstifeyev
>>> -will
>>> On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 7:56 AM, Will Norris<will@willnorris.com>  wrote:
>>> this actually came up on the list very recently and we're in the process of getting it registered. Thanks for the reminder though. :)
>>> -will
>>> On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 6:16 AM, Mykyta Yevstifeyev<evnikita2@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>> Reading the XRI TC specification and seeing the IANA registry for URI schemes (http://www.iana.org/assignments/uri-schemes.html), I've noticed that the 'xri' URI scheme, used when mapping XRIs to URIs/IRIs, isn't yet registered there.  Since there is a claimed use of this scheme name, I think it is necessary to officially register the scheme with IETF/IANA.  This might be done via publishing the Informational RFC.  So what's your opinion?  If you think it is a good idea, I may help as an editor of an appropriate document.
>>> Mykyta Yevstifeyev

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]