Re: [Uri-review] draft-larmouth-oid-iri-01 editorials

[David Booth <david at dbooth.org>]

John,

Why wouldn't an HTTP URI prefix be just as good or better for this
purpose?  The use of HTTP URI prefixes is described here:
http://dbooth.org/2006/urn2http/
Note that HTTP URIs could dramatically improve the adoption rate for a
new protocol, by resolving to a download of the protocol implementation
software, as suggested by Graham Klyne:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/uri/2009Sep/0029.html 

David Booth



On Sun, 2009-10-11 at 15:42 +0100, John Larmouth wrote:
> Alfred, Chris,
> 
> Many thanks for all your help.
> 
> You will see that I have now posted  draft-larmouth-oid-iri-02 which  
> contains all the corrections you suggested, and there have been no 
> further comments on uri-review in the last couple of weeks..
> 
> It is now my intention to e-mail iana at iana.org (in accordance with  RFC  
> 4395) to request IANA to register 'oid:' as a permanent URI scheme, 
> referencing draft-larmouth-oid-iri-02 (IANA considerations) for the 
> registration template.
> 
> If anyone on this list has problems with that, please  respond in the 
> next week. 
> 
> I guess that the Designated Expert for the IANA requested Expert Review 
> is likely to be Alfred (who has been most active in reviewing earlier 
> drafts), and will hopefully have no problems in rapidly responding to 
> that request from IANA.
> 
> I hope we can soon bring this to a conclusion.
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> John L
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Uri-review mailing list
> Uri-review at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review
> 
> 
-- 
David Booth, Ph.D.
Cleveland Clinic (contractor)

Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily
reflect those of Cleveland Clinic.