idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-urlreg-procedures-06.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** Looks like you're using RFC 2026 boilerplate. This must be updated to follow RFC 3978/3979, as updated by RFC 4748. 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. ** 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 == The page length should not exceed 58 lines per page, but there was 1 longer page, the longest (page 1) being 393 lines Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** 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. ** The document seems to lack a both a reference to RFC 2119 and the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if it appears to use RFC 2119 keywords. RFC 2119 keyword, line 110: '...ess of registration tree, MUST conform...' RFC 2119 keyword, line 119: '...ered in the IETF tree MUST NOT contain...' RFC 2119 keyword, line 125: '... REQUIRED. (This is in accordance w...' RFC 2119 keyword, line 157: '... new URL schemes SHOULD follow the Gui...' RFC 2119 keyword, line 173: '... security risks SHOULD be identified....' Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the RFC 3978 Section 5.4 Copyright Line does not match the current year -- 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 (March 30, 1999) is 9159 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) -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: 'URL-GUIDELINES' on line 342 ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2396 (ref. '1') (Obsoleted by RFC 3986) -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. '2' ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2223 (ref. '3') (Obsoleted by RFC 7322) Summary: 11 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 3 warnings (==), 4 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 INTERNET-DRAFT R. Petke 2 UUNET Technologies 3 I. King 4 Microsoft Corporation 5 March 30, 1999 7 Registration Procedures for URL Scheme Names 9 Status of this Memo 11 This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with 12 all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. Internet-Drafts are 13 working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its 14 areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also 15 distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. Internet-Drafts 16 are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be 17 updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It 18 is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to 19 cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current 20 Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 21 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt The list of Internet- 22 Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 23 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 25 Distribution of this Internet-Draft is unlimited. 27 This Internet-Draft expires September 30, 1999. 29 Copyright Notice 31 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1999). All Rights Reserved. 33 Abstract 35 This document defines the process by which new URL scheme names are 36 registered. 38 1.0 Introduction 40 A Uniform Resource Locator (URL) is a compact string representation 41 of the location for a resource that is available via the Internet. 42 RFC 2396 [1] defines the general syntax and semantics of URIs, and, 43 by inclusion, URLs. URLs are designated by including a ":" 44 and then a "". Many URL schemes are already 45 defined, however, new schemes may need to be defined in the future 46 in order to accommodate new Internet protocols and/or procedures. 48 A registration process is needed to ensure that the names of all 49 such new schemes are guaranteed not to collide. Further, the 50 registration process ensures that URL schemes intended for wide 51 spread, public use are developed in an orderly, well-specified, and 52 public manner. 54 This document defines the registration procedures to be followed 55 when new URL schemes are created. A separate document, RFC 56 [URL-GUIDELINES], Guidelines for URL Schemes [2], provides 57 guidelines for the creation of new URL schemes. The primary focus 58 of this document is on the portion of new URL schemes, 59 referred to as the "scheme name" throughout this document. 61 2.0 URL Scheme Name Registration Trees 63 2.1 General 65 In order to increase the efficiency and flexibility of the URL 66 scheme name registration process, the need is recognized for 67 multiple registration "trees". The registration requirements and 68 specific registration procedures for each tree differ, allowing the 69 overall registration procedure to accommodate the different natural 70 requirements for URL schemes. For example, a scheme that will be 71 recommended for wide support and implementation by the Internet 72 community requires a more complete review than a scheme intended to 73 be used for resources associated with proprietary software. 75 The first step in registering a new URL scheme name is to determine 76 which registration tree the scheme should be registered in. 77 Determination of the proper registration tree is based on the 78 intended use for the new scheme and the desired syntax for the 79 scheme name. 81 This document will discuss in detail the tree that reflects current 82 practice, under IETF ownership and control. It will also set forth 83 an outline to assist authors in creating new trees to address 84 differing needs for wide acceptance and interoperability, ease of 85 creation and use, and type and "strength" of ownership. 87 2.2 The IETF Tree 89 The IETF tree is intended for URL schemes of general interest to the 90 Internet community. The tree exists for URL schemes that require a 91 substantive review and approval process. It is expected that 92 applicability statements for particular applications will be 93 published from time to time that recommend implementation of, and 94 support for, URL schemes that have proven particularly useful in 95 those contexts. 97 2.3 Additional Registration Trees 99 From time to time and as required by the community, the IESG may 100 create new top-level registration trees. These trees may require 101 significant, little or no registration, and may allow change control 102 to rest in the hands of individuals or groups other than IETF. A 103 new tree should only be created if no existing tree can be shown to 104 address the set of needs of some sector of the community. 106 3.0 Requirements for Scheme Name Registration 108 3.1 General Requirements 110 All new URL schemes, regardless of registration tree, MUST conform 111 to the generic syntax for URLs as specified in RFC 2396. 113 3.2 The IETF Tree 115 Registration in the IETF tree requires publication of the URL scheme 116 syntax and semantics in either an Informational or Standards Track 117 RFC. 119 The NAMES of schemes registered in the IETF tree MUST NOT contain 120 the dash (also known as the hyphen and minus sign) character ('-') 121 USASCII value 2Dh. Use of this character can cause confusion with 122 schemes registered in alternative trees (see section 3.3). 124 An analysis of the security issues inherent in the new URL scheme is 125 REQUIRED. (This is in accordance with the basic requirements for 126 all IETF protocols.) There is absolutely no requirement that all 127 URL schemes registered in the IETF tree be secure or completely free 128 from risks. Nevertheless, all known security risks must be 129 identified. 131 The "owner" of a URL scheme name registered in the IETF tree is 132 assumed to be the IETF itself. Modification or alteration of the 133 specification requires the same level of processing (e.g. 134 Informational or Standards Track RFC) as used for the initial 135 registration. Schemes originally defined via an Informational RFC 136 may, however, be replaced with Standards Track documents. 138 3.3 Alternative Trees 140 While public exposure and review of a URL scheme created in an 141 alternative tree is not required, using the IETF Internet-Draft 142 mechanism for peer review is strongly encouraged to improve the 143 quality of the specification. RFC publication of alternative tree 144 URL schemes is encouraged but not required. Material may be 145 published as an Informational RFC by sending it to the RFC Editor 146 (please follow the instructions to RFC authors, RFC 2223 [3]). 148 The defining document for an alternative tree may require public 149 exposure and/or review for schemes defined in that tree via a 150 mechanism other than the IETF Internet-Draft mechanism. 152 URL schemes created in an alternative tree must conform to the 153 generic URL syntax, RFC 2396. The tree's defining document may set 154 forth additional syntax and semantics requirements above and 155 beyond those specified in RFC 2396. 157 All new URL schemes SHOULD follow the Guidelines for URL Schemes, 158 set forth in RFC [URL-GUIDELINES] [2]. 160 An analysis of the security issues inherent in the new URL scheme is 161 encouraged. Regardless of what security analysis is or is not 162 performed, all descriptions of security issues must be as accurate 163 as possible. In particular, a statement that there are "no security 164 issues associated with this scheme" must not be confused with "the 165 security issues associates with this scheme have not been assessed" 166 or "the security issues associated with this scheme cannot be 167 predicted because of ". 169 There is absolutely no requirement that URL schemes created in an 170 alternative tree be secure or completely free from risks. 171 Nevertheless, the tree's defining document must set forth the 172 standard for security considerations, and in any event all known 173 security risks SHOULD be identified. 175 Change control must be defined for a new tree. Change control may 176 be vested in the IETF, or in an individual, group or other entity. 177 The change control standard for the tree must be approved by the 178 IESG. 180 The syntax for alternative trees shall be as follows: each tree will 181 be identified by a unique prefix, which must be established in the 182 same fashion as a URL scheme name in the IETF tree, except that the 183 prefix must be defined by a Standards Track document. Scheme names 184 in the new tree are then constructed by prepending the prefix to an 185 identifier unique to each scheme in that tree, as prescribed by that 186 tree's identifying document: 188 '-' 190 For instance, the "foo" tree would allow creation of scheme names of 191 the form: "foo-blahblah:" and "foo-bar:", where the tree prescribes 192 an arbitrary USASCII string following the tree's unique prefix. 194 4.0 Registration Procedures 196 4.1 The IETF Tree 198 The first step in registering a new URL scheme in the IETF tree is 199 to publish an IETF Internet-Draft detailing the syntax and 200 semantics of the proposed scheme. The draft must, minimally, 201 address all of the items covered by the template provided in section 202 6 of this document. 204 After all issues raised during a review period of no less than 4 205 weeks have been addressed, submit the draft to the IESG for review. 207 The IESG will review the proposed new scheme and either refer the 208 scheme to a working group (existing or new) or directly present the 209 scheme to the IESG for a last call. In the former case, the working 210 group is responsible for submitting a final version of the draft to 211 the IESG for approval at such time as it has received adequate 212 review and deliberation. 214 4.2 Alternative Trees 216 Registration of URL schemes created in an alternative tree may be 217 formal, through IETF documents, IANA registration, or other 218 acknowledged organization; informal, through a mailing list or 219 other publication mechanism; or nonexistent. The registration 220 mechanism must be documented for each alternative tree, and must be 221 consistent for all URL scheme names created in that tree. 223 It is the responsibility of the creator of the tree's registration 224 requirements to establish that the registration mechanism is 225 workable as described; it is within the discretion of the IESG to 226 reject the document describing a tree if it determines the 227 registration mechanism is impractical or creates an undue burden on 228 a party who will not accept it. (For instance, if an IANA 229 registration mechanism is proposed, IESG might reject the tree if 230 its mechanism would create undue liability on the part of IANA.) 232 While the template in section 6 of this document is intended to 233 apply to URL scheme names in the IETF tree, it is also offered as a 234 guideline for those documenting alternative trees. 236 5.0 Change Control 238 5.1 Schemes in the IETF Tree 240 URL schemes created in the IETF tree are "owned" by the IETF itself 241 and may be changed, as needed, by updating the RFC that describes 242 them. Schemes described by Standards Track RFC but be replaced with 243 new Standards Track RFCs. Informational RFCs may be replaced by new 244 Informational RFCs or Standards Track RFCs. 246 5.2 Schemes in Alternative Trees 248 URL schemes in an alternative tree that are undocumented (as allowed 249 by that tree's rules) may be changed by their owner at any time 250 without notifying the IETF. 252 URL schemes created in an alternative tree that have been documented 253 by an Informational RFC, may be changed at any time by the owner, 254 however, an updated Informational RFC which details the changes 255 made, must be submitted to the IESG. 257 The owner of a URL scheme registered in an alternative tree and 258 documented by an Informational RFC may pass responsibility for the 259 registration to another person or agency by informing the IESG. 261 The IESG may reassign responsibility for a URL scheme registered in 262 an alternative tree and documented by an Informational RFC. The 263 most common case of this will be to enable changes to be made to 264 schemes where the scheme name is privately owned by the rules of its 265 tree, and the owner of the scheme name has died, moved out of 266 contact or is otherwise unable to make changes that are important to 267 the community. 269 The IESG may reclassify a URL scheme created in an alternative tree 270 and documented via an Informational RFC as "historic" if it 271 determines that the scheme is no longer in use. 273 6.0 Registration Template 275 The following issues should be addressed when documenting a new URL 276 scheme: 278 URL scheme name. 280 URL scheme syntax. This should be expressed in a clear and 281 concise manner. The use of ABNF is encouraged. Please refer to 282 RFC [URL-GUIDELINES] for guidance on designing and explaining 283 your scheme's syntax. 285 Character encoding considerations. It is important to identify 286 what your scheme supports in this regard. It is obvious that for 287 interoperability, it is best if there is a means to support 288 character sets beyond USASCII, but especially for private 289 schemes, this may not be the case. 291 Intended usage. What sort of resource is being identified? If 292 this is not a 'resource' type of URL (e.g. mailto:), explain the 293 action that should be initiated by the consumer of the URL. If 294 there is a MIME type associated with this resource, please 295 identify it. 297 Applications and/or protocols which use this URL scheme name. 298 Including references to documentation which defines the 299 applications and/or protocols cited is especially useful. 301 Interoperability considerations. If you are aware of any details 302 regarding your scheme which might impact interoperability, please 303 identify them here. For example: proprietary or uncommon 304 encoding method; inability to support multibyte character sets; 305 incompatibility with types or versions of underlying protocol 306 (if scheme is tunneled over another protocol). 308 Security considerations. 310 Relevant publications. 312 Person & email address to contact for further information. 314 Author/Change controller. 316 Applications and/or protocols which use this URL scheme name. 318 7.0 Security Considerations 320 Information that creates or updates a registration needs to be 321 authenticated. 323 Information concerning possible security vulnerabilities of a 324 protocol may change over time. Consequently, claims as to the 325 security properties of a registered URL scheme may change as well. 326 As new vulnerabilities are discovered, information about such 327 vulnerabilities may need to be attached to existing documentation, 328 so that users are not misled as to the true security properties of a 329 registered URL scheme. 331 If the IESG agrees to delegate the registration and change control 332 functions of an alternative tree to a group or individual outside of 333 the IETF, that group or individual should have sufficient security 334 procedures in place to authenticate registration changes. 336 8.0 References 338 [1] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., Masinter, L., "Uniform Resource 339 Identifiers (URI): Generic Syntax", RFC 2396, August 1998 341 [2] Masinter, L., Alvestrand, H., Zigmond, D., Petke, R., 342 "Guidelines for new URL Schemes", RFC [URL-GUIDELINES], August 343 1998 345 [3] Postel, J., Reynolds, J., "Instructions to RFC Authors", 346 RFC 2223, October 1997. 348 9.0 Authors' Address 350 Rich Petke 351 UUNET Technologies 352 5000 Britton Road 353 P. O. Box 5000 354 Hilliard, OH 43026-5000 355 USA 356 Phone: +1 614 723 4157 357 Fax: +1 614 723 8407 358 Email: rpetke@wcom.net 360 Ian King 361 Microsoft Corporation 362 One Microsoft Way 363 Redmond, WA 98052-6399 364 USA 365 Phone: +1 425-703-2293 366 FAX: +1 425-936-7329 367 Email: iking@microsoft.com