idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-urlreg-noreg-00.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** Cannot find the required boilerplate sections (Copyright, IPR, etc.) in this document. Expected boilerplate is as follows today (2024-04-25) according to https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info : IETF Trust Legal Provisions of 28-dec-2009, Section 6.a: This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. IETF Trust Legal Provisions of 28-dec-2009, Section 6.b(i), paragraph 2: Copyright (c) 2024 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. IETF Trust Legal Provisions of 28-dec-2009, Section 6.b(i), paragraph 3: This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** Missing expiration date. The document expiration date should appear on the first and last page. ** The document seems to lack a 1id_guidelines paragraph about Internet-Drafts being working documents. ** The document seems to lack a 1id_guidelines paragraph about 6 months document validity -- however, there's a paragraph with a matching beginning. Boilerplate error? ** The document seems to lack a 1id_guidelines paragraph about the list of current Internet-Drafts. ** The document seems to lack a 1id_guidelines paragraph about the list of Shadow Directories. == No 'Intended status' indicated for this document; assuming Proposed Standard Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document seems to lack a Security Considerations section. ** The document seems to lack an IANA Considerations section. (See Section 2.2 of https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist for how to handle the case when there are no actions for IANA.) ** The document seems to lack separate sections for Informative/Normative References. All references will be assumed normative when checking for downward references. == There are 1 instance of lines with non-RFC2606-compliant FQDNs in the document. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. If you have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore this comment. If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer. (See the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- The document date (October 30, 1997) is 9674 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'URL-REG' -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'URL-SYNTAX' -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'STD13' Summary: 9 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 5 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 INTERNET-DRAFT Yaron Y. Goland 2 Expires: April 1998 Microsoft Corporation 3 Standards Track October 30, 1997 5 Uniform Resource Locators (URL): NOREG URL Naming Scheme 6 draft-ietf-urlreg-noreg-00.txt 8 Status of this Memo 10 This document is an Internet-Draft. Internet-Drafts are working 11 documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, 12 and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute 13 working documents as Internet-Drafts. 15 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six 16 months and may be updated, replaced, or made obsolete by other 17 documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as 18 reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress". 20 To learn the current status of any Internet-Draft, please check the 21 "1id-abstracts.txt" listing contained in the Internet-Drafts Shadow 22 Directories on ftp.is.co.za (Africa), nic.nordu.net (Europe), 23 munnari.oz.au (Pacific Rim), ds.internic.net (US East Coast), or 24 ftp.isi.edu (US West Coast). 26 Abstract 28 This document proposes mapping DNS names into the URL scheme space 29 for the purpose of preventing namespace collisions amongst URL 30 schemes whose syntax and functionality are not appropriate for 31 standardization. 33 1. Introduction 35 In [URL-REG] a process is established for registering new URL 36 schemes. However this registration process is centralized and keyed 37 toward schemes that define new standards. 39 Not all URL schemes need to be standardized. Many schemes are 40 registered with client software so as to activate software, not to 41 specify a generalized function. In such cases the key concern is the 42 prevention of URL scheme name collisions, not an open registration 43 of the URL's syntax or functionality. 45 2. NOREG URL Prefix Scheme Syntax 47 Scheme = "NOREG+" domain '+' [extension] 48 domain = see [STD13] section 3.5 49 extension = URL-Scheme 50 URL-Scheme = see the scheme production in [URL-SYNTAX] section 4.1 52 3. Examples 54 The owner of the foo.bar.com DNS name would, under this proposal, be 55 given control of the NOREG+foo.bar.com+ URL scheme. The scheme can 56 be used by itself to form URLs, for example, 57 NOREG+foo.bar.com+://www.nowhere.com/somewhere or can be used as a 58 prefix, for example, NOREG+foo.bar.com+any-legal-scheme- 59 characters:anything:anywhere. 61 4. Namespace Ownership 63 Whoever owns a particular DNS name owns all NOREG URL scheme names 64 as defined under this standard. If a DNS name should change 65 ownership then all NOREG URL scheme names defined using this 66 standard are transferred to the new owner. 68 5. Trademarks 70 The trademark ramifications of this scheme are left in the hands of 71 those who define names under this scheme. As no central authority 72 handles registration of the names there is no central authority to 73 be served with court papers. As such there are no special trademark 74 issues that need to be addressed by the specification. 76 6. References 78 [URL-REG] Masinter, Alvestrand, Zigmond, 'Guidelines for new URL 79 Schemes', WORK IN PROGRESS, . 82 [URL-SYNTAX] Berners-Lee, Fielding, Mastiner, WORK IN PROGRESS, 83 'Uniform Resource Locators: Generic Syntax and Semantics', . 86 [STD13] Mockapetrix, 'DOMAIN NAMES - CONCEPTS AND FACILITIES', 87 INTERNET STANDARD, . 90 7. Author's Address 92 Yaron Y. Goland 93 Microsoft Corporation 94 1 Microsoft Way 95 Redmond, WA 98052 97 Email: yarong@microsoft.com