On 17-Mar-06, at 1:29 PM, Dan Connolly wrote:
Section 7 of http://dixs.org/index.php/Draft-merrells-dix-01.txt
says "This document has no IANA Actions." but section 3.2.6. DIX
URI Namespace
introduces a new URI scheme.
My understanding of this is that because the document is an individual
submission and not a working group document that there can be no
IANA actions from it. If it were a working group document then this
document would have to call out 'dix' registration as an action.
I'm happy to add a comment to the draft to make that clearer though.
Introducing a new URI scheme just for DIX is not a good use of
scarce community resources;
let's not do the DAV: thing again.
Instead of
dix:/homesite
just use something like
http://dixs.org/terms#homesite
This issue then becomes who owns that domain.
There are some IANA considerations around dixs.org; IANA should
make sure that name is reserved for this purpose in perpetuity if this
spec is adopted. Or the DIX profile should use iana.org or ietf.org .
(There's a BCP that says to use urn:ietf , but I recommend against
that;
I intend to renew the internet draft that argues for http/dns rather
than urn:ietf: .)
The draft charter also doesn't say that DIX is introducing a new
URI scheme.
http://dixs.org/index.php/DIX_Charter
Please add something to the charter about getting review for the
dix: scheme.
Note that draft-merrells-dix-01 (aka dmd1) is a write up of an
example solution
to the problem space we're considering here.
If a WG were to be created then dmd1 would just be source material
for another
set of documents written to describe the WG's collective solution to
the problem.
The consensus of the group may or may not be to base that work on
dmd1 and
may or may not want to use URI's in that way and may or may not want to
register a new scheme.
John
_______________________________________________
dix mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dix
