03.06.2011 7:29, Drummond Reed wrote:
As far as I understand, you approve the proposal to publish an RFC
reserving the scheme. Am I right?
I apologize for not responding earlier - I had extensive travel in
May and am only catching up on all email now.
Will is correct that XRI 3.0 does not require the xri: scheme as
was required in XRI 2.0. However you are correct that XRI 2.0 has
been an OASIS Committee Speciification and does specify the
scheme. So I agree that it would be best for it to be formally
If you agree on having an RFC published, I've already finished
writing the appropriate Internet-Draft, which may be processed as an
RFC quite quickly, if there is a strong community consensus on its
publication. So, if you finally approbate the intent for
publication of the RFC, I'll issue it to IETF Internet-Drafts
repository ASAP, to allow its community review and further
On the thread below, I'm not actually sure who is making which
statements/comments, and what remains as open issues in terms of
preparing the submission. Could you reply back with what
information you still need? I will make sure you receive a timely
OASIS XRI Technical Committee
On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 9:02 PM, MyKyta
31.05.2011 4:26, Joseph Anthony Pasquale
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
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.
URI scheme name.
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 syntax.
See [XRISyntax2], Section 2 Syntax.
Section 2.1 only is mostly fine here; Section 2.3 may be
omitted, I think.
URI scheme semantics.
See [XRIResolution2] z
See [XRISyntax2], Section 2.1 Characters and Section 2.3
Maybe, it should be "none"; at least Section 2.5 of Syntax
spec. isn't Ok.
Applications and/or protocols that use this URI scheme
See [XRISyntax2], Section 2.5 Normalization and
RFC 4395 requires an Email address of Change Controller.
Which is appropriate?
See [XRISyntax2], Section 3 Security and Data Protection
[XRISyntax2] Reed, D., et al. "Extensible Resource
Identifier (XRI) Syntax V2.0", http://docs.oasis-open.org/xri/V2.0,
[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,
On May 27, 2011, at 12:00 PM, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
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
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).
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 7:56 AM, Will Norris<email@example.com>
this actually came up on the list very recently and
we're in the process of getting it registered.
Thanks for the reminder though. :)
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 6:16 AM, Mykyta
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.
This publicly archived list offers a means to provide input to
OASIS Extensible Resource Identifier (XRI) TC.
In order to verify user consent to the Feedback License terms
to minimize spam in the list archive, subscription is required
List help: firstname.lastname@example.org
List archive: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xri-comment/
Feedback License: http://www.oasis-open.org/who/ipr/feedback_license.pdf
List Guidelines: http://www.oasis-open.org/maillists/guidelines.php