> >One other thing to remember is that if URL/URI is registered by
> >means of RFC, it needs to have protocol that is also documented
> >by RFC which rsync is not
>
>
> I was in a URI WG meeting some IETF's ago and I thought that this was
> an historical and not a current constraint. I'm not sure what
> transpired with this work, so perhaps the best way forward is to
> establish what we can from the documentation. So if what you are
> asserting is indeed the case then there should be documentation to
> support this. Could you please point me to the IETF document where
> the need you refer to above relating to a published RFC for a URI
> type is clearly stated?
>
Geoff
The guidelines for URI registration are in RFC4395. s2.3 expects the scheme to
have a well-defined mapping onto a namespace or protocol or there to be a good
explanation of why not. This is not insuperable. There is an individual
submission standards-track I-D for SMB (a protocol which could be loaded with
issues of being ill-defined, IPR-laden etc) but does, I think, meet the
requirements.
thanks Tom
I believe that this answers the question - the current process for
URI registration is via use of a registration template and an IANA
registry, and not via an RFC.
regards,
Geoff
_______________________________________________
Sidr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
