NOTE: This charter is a snapshot of the 41st IETF Meeting in Los Angeles, California. It may now be out-of-date. Last Modified: 11-Mar-98
Chair(s):
Rich Petke <r.petke@csi.compuserve.com>
Ian King <iking@microsoft.com>
Applications Area Director(s):
Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>
Harald Alvestrand <Harald.Alvestrand@maxware.no>
Applications Area Advisor:
Harald Alvestrand <Harald.Alvestrand@maxware.no>
Mailing Lists:
General Discussion:ietf-url@imc.org
To Subscribe: ietf-url-request@imc.org
In Body: subscribe in message body
Archive: http://www.imc.org/ietf-url/
Description of Working Group:
This working group exists for the purpose of creating two documents: The first document, a BCP RFC, will be the process for registering new URL schemes. The second document, an Informational RFC, will be a guideline for the creators of new URL schemes. The purpose of this guideline will be to help ensure that new URL schemes:
- Consistently implement the general syntax of URLs as specified in the URL Generic Syntax and Semantics RFC. - Are compatible with existing URL schemes. - Have clearly specified character encoding rules. - Have a well defined set of operations specified for them. - Properly address security considerations.
The following issues are considered beyond the scope of this working group and shall not be addressed by it:
- Modifications to the URL Generic Syntax and Semantics RFC. - Specific URL schemes, previously proposed or not, except as test cases for the guidelines document. - UR* schemes other than URLs.
Justification for working group:
RFC 1738 defined URL schemes for a number of protocols popular at the time that it was written. Many URL schemes for protocols not addressed in RFC 1738 have been proposed since the publication of that RFC.
Due to the absence of guidelines for the development of new URL schemes, some of these recently proposed schemes lack completeness. Further, while some of these schemes are now on the standards track, no mechanism for the registration of these new schemes has yet been specified.
The output of this working group is needed in order to help ensure the overall integrity and consistency of URLs in the future.
Goals and Milestones:
Jul 97 |
|
Publish drafts of the registration and guidelines documents which capture all open issues and propose possible resolutions for each. |
Dec 97 |
|
Submit guidelines document to IESG as an Informational RFC. |
Dec 97 |
|
Conclude WG. |
Dec 97 |
|
Submit registration document to IESG as BCP RFC. |
Internet-Drafts:
· Guidelines for new URL Schemes
· Uniform Resource Locators (URL): NOREG URL Naming Scheme
· Registration Procedures for URL Scheme Names
No Request For Comments
Minutes of the Uniform Resource Locator Registration Procedures (urlreg) Working Group
Minutes recorded by Lisa Dusseault of Microsoft and Edited by Rich Petke of CompuServe Network Services.
A brief overview of the current "procedures" draft, previously posted to the list and the Internet Drafts directory, was presented. It was pointed out that the draft was nothing more than a reflection of the minutes from the Washington, DC meeting. The overview highlighted the proposed four classifications of scheme names: common names, acronyms, trademarks, and the DNS based "NOREG" scheme.
After some discussion it was generally agreed that the IETF/IESG should try to avoid the whole trademark issue as much as possible.
There was a brief discussion on whether ANY registration procedure would be used or not. The consensus was that it most likely would be used.
The discussion then focused on the proposed four categories for scheme names as outlined in the current draft. After a long (but enlightening), debate, the consensus of the group was to:
Create three classifications of scheme names: Standard, vendor (start with (vnd."), and private (a.k.a., the NOREG scheme). Mimic the MIME registration procedures outlined in RFC 2048.
Standard scheme names will require an RFC that documents them and change control for the scheme belongs to the IESG.
Vendor scheme names require a registration form to be completed but RFCs are encouraged. Change control of the scheme belongs to the vendor.
Private scheme names do not even require registration.
Rich Petke pledged to have a new draft of the registration procedures document out by the end of the month.
None Received