idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-urlreg-procedures-07.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: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** 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. == 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 382 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. 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 (August 12, 1999) is 9017 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 356 ** 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: 7 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 3 warnings (==), 4 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 Ian King 2 Speech Product Group 3 MICROSOFT CORPORATION 5 INTERNET-DRAFT R. Petke 6 UUNET Technologies 7 I. King 8 Microsoft Corporation 9 August 12, 1999 11 Registration Procedures for URL Scheme Names 13 Status of this Memo 15 This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with 16 all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. Internet-Drafts are 17 working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its 18 areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also 19 distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. Internet-Drafts 20 are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be 21 updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It 22 is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to 23 cite them other than as "work in progress." 25 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 26 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. 28 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 29 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 31 Distribution of this Internet-Draft is unlimited. 33 This Internet-Draft expires March 12, 2000. 35 Copyright Notice 37 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1999). All Rights Reserved. 39 Abstract 41 This document defines the process by which new URL scheme names are 42 registered. 44 1.0 Introduction 46 A Uniform Resource Locator (URL) is a compact string representation 47 of the location for a resource that is available via the Internet. 48 RFC 2396 [1] defines the general syntax and semantics of URIs, and, 49 by inclusion, URLs. URLs are designated by including a ":" 50 and then a "". Many URL schemes are already 51 defined, however, new schemes may need to be defined in the future 52 in order to accommodate new Internet protocols and/or procedures. 54 A registration process is needed to ensure that the names of all 55 such new schemes are guaranteed not to collide. Further, the 56 registration process ensures that URL schemes intended for wide 57 spread, public use are developed in an orderly, well-specified, and 58 public manner. 60 This document defines the registration procedures to be followed 61 when new URL schemes are created. A separate document, RFC 62 [URL-GUIDELINES], Guidelines for URL Schemes [2], provides 63 guidelines for the creation of new URL schemes. The primary focus 64 of this document is on the portion of new URL schemes, 65 referred to as the "scheme name" throughout this document. 67 1.1 Notation 69 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 70 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 71 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119. 73 2.0 URL Scheme Name Registration Trees 75 2.1 General 77 In order to increase the efficiency and flexibility of the URL 78 scheme name registration process, the need is recognized for 79 multiple registration "trees". The registration requirements and 80 specific registration procedures for each tree differ, allowing the 81 overall registration procedure to accommodate the different natural 82 requirements for URL schemes. For example, a scheme that will be 83 recommended for wide support and implementation by the Internet 84 community requires a more complete review than a scheme intended to 85 be used for resources associated with proprietary software. 87 The first step in registering a new URL scheme name is to determine 88 which registration tree the scheme should be registered in. 89 Determination of the proper registration tree is based on the 90 intended use for the new scheme and the desired syntax for the 91 scheme name. 93 This document will discuss in detail the tree that reflects current 94 practice, under IETF ownership and control. It will also set forth 95 an outline to assist authors in creating new trees to address 96 differing needs for wide acceptance and interoperability, ease of 97 creation and use, and type and "strength" of ownership. 99 2.2 The IETF Tree 101 The IETF tree is intended for URL schemes of general interest to the 102 Internet community. The tree exists for URL schemes that require a 103 substantive review and approval process. It is expected that 104 applicability statements for particular applications will be 105 published from time to time that recommend implementation of, and 106 support for, URL schemes that have proven particularly useful in 107 those contexts. 109 2.3 Additional Registration Trees 111 From time to time and as required by the community, the IESG may 112 create new top-level registration trees. These trees may require 113 significant, little or no registration, and may allow change control 114 to rest in the hands of individuals or groups other than IETF. A 115 new tree should only be created if no existing tree can be shown to 116 address the set of needs of some sector of the community. 118 3.0 Requirements for Scheme Name Registration 120 3.1 General Requirements 122 All new URL schemes, regardless of registration tree, MUST conform 123 to the generic syntax for URLs as specified in RFC 2396. 125 3.2 The IETF Tree 127 Registration in the IETF tree requires publication of the URL scheme 128 syntax and semantics in either an Informational or Standards Track 129 RFC. 131 The NAMES of schemes registered in the IETF tree MUST NOT contain 132 the dash (also known as the hyphen and minus sign) character ('-') 133 USASCII value 2Dh. Use of this character can cause confusion with 134 schemes registered in alternative trees (see section 3.3). 136 An analysis of the security issues inherent in the new URL scheme 137 is REQUIRED. (This is in accordance with the basic requirements for 138 all IETF protocols.) URL schemes registered in the IETF tree should 139 not introduce additional security risks into the Internet Architec- 140 ture. For example, URLs should not embed information which should 141 remain confidential, such as passwords, nor should new schemes 142 subvert the security of existing schemes or protocols (i.e. by 143 layering or tunneling). 145 The "owner" of a URL scheme name registered in the IETF tree is 146 assumed to be the IETF itself. Modification or alteration of the 147 specification requires the same level of processing (e.g. 148 Informational or Standards Track RFC) as used for the initial 149 registration. Schemes originally defined via an Informational RFC 150 may, however, be replaced with Standards Track documents. 152 3.3 Alternative Trees 154 While public exposure and review of a URL scheme created in an 155 alternative tree is not required, using the IETF Internet-Draft 156 mechanism for peer review is strongly encouraged to improve the 157 quality of the specification. RFC publication of alternative tree 158 URL schemes is encouraged but not required. Material may be 159 published as an Informational RFC by sending it to the RFC Editor 160 (please follow the instructions to RFC authors, RFC 2223 [3]). 162 The defining document for an alternative tree may require public 163 exposure and/or review for schemes defined in that tree via a 164 mechanism other than the IETF Internet-Draft mechanism. 166 URL schemes created in an alternative tree must conform to the 167 generic URL syntax, RFC 2396. The tree's defining document may set 168 forth additional syntax and semantics requirements above and 169 beyond those specified in RFC 2396. 171 All new URL schemes SHOULD follow the Guidelines for URL Schemes, 172 set forth in RFC [URL-GUIDELINES] [2]. 174 An analysis of the security issues inherent in the new URL scheme is 175 encouraged. Regardless of what security analysis is or is not 176 performed, all descriptions of security issues must be as accurate 177 as possible. In particular, a statement that there are "no security 178 issues associated with this scheme" must not be confused with "the 179 security issues associates with this scheme have not been assessed" 180 or "the security issues associated with this scheme cannot be 181 predicted because of ". 183 There is absolutely no requirement that URL schemes created in an 184 alternative tree be secure or completely free from risks. 185 Nevertheless, the tree's defining document must set forth the 186 standard for security considerations, and in any event all known 187 security risks SHOULD be identified. 189 Change control must be defined for a new tree. Change control may 190 be vested in the IETF, or in an individual, group or other entity. 191 The change control standard for the tree must be approved by the 192 IESG. 194 The syntax for alternative trees shall be as follows: each tree will 195 be identified by a unique prefix, which must be established in the 196 same fashion as a URL scheme name in the IETF tree, except that the 197 prefix must be defined by a Standards Track document. Scheme names 198 in the new tree are then constructed by prepending the prefix to an 199 identifier unique to each scheme in that tree, as prescribed by that 200 tree's identifying document: 202 '-' 204 For instance, the "foo" tree would allow creation of scheme names of 205 the form: "foo-blahblah:" and "foo-bar:", where the tree prescribes 206 an arbitrary USASCII string following the tree's unique prefix. 208 4.0 Registration Procedures 210 4.1 The IETF Tree 212 The first step in registering a new URL scheme in the IETF tree is 213 to publish an IETF Internet-Draft detailing the syntax and 214 semantics of the proposed scheme. The draft must, minimally, 215 address all of the items covered by the template provided in section 216 6 of this document. 218 After all issues raised during a review period of no less than 4 219 weeks have been addressed, submit the draft to the IESG for review. 221 The IESG will review the proposed new scheme and either refer the 222 scheme to a working group (existing or new) or directly present the 223 scheme to the IESG for a last call. In the former case, the working 224 group is responsible for submitting a final version of the draft to 225 the IESG for approval at such time as it has received adequate 226 review and deliberation. 228 4.2 Alternative Trees 230 Registration of URL schemes created in an alternative tree may be 231 formal, through IETF documents, IANA registration, or other 232 acknowledged organization; informal, through a mailing list or 233 other publication mechanism; or nonexistent. The registration 234 mechanism must be documented for each alternative tree, and must be 235 consistent for all URL scheme names created in that tree. 237 It is the responsibility of the creator of the tree's registration 238 requirements to establish that the registration mechanism is 239 workable as described; it is within the discretion of the IESG to 240 reject the document describing a tree if it determines the 241 registration mechanism is impractical or creates an undue burden on 242 a party who will not accept it. (For instance, if an IANA 243 registration mechanism is proposed, IESG might reject the tree if 244 its mechanism would create undue liability on the part of IANA.) 246 While the template in section 6 of this document is intended to 247 apply to URL scheme names in the IETF tree, it is also offered as a 248 guideline for those documenting alternative trees. 250 5.0 Change Control 252 5.1 Schemes in the IETF Tree 254 URL schemes created in the IETF tree are "owned" by the IETF itself 255 and may be changed, as needed, by updating the RFC that describes 256 them. Schemes described by Standards Track RFC but be replaced with 257 new Standards Track RFCs. Informational RFCs may be replaced by new 258 Informational RFCs or Standards Track RFCs. 260 5.2 Schemes in Alternative Trees 262 URL schemes in an alternative tree that are undocumented (as allowed 263 by that tree's rules) may be changed by their owner at any time 264 without notifying the IETF. 266 URL schemes created in an alternative tree that have been documented 267 by an Informational RFC, may be changed at any time by the owner, 268 however, an updated Informational RFC which details the changes 269 made, must be submitted to the IESG. 271 The owner of a URL scheme registered in an alternative tree and 272 documented by an Informational RFC may pass responsibility for the 273 registration to another person or agency by informing the IESG. 275 The IESG may reassign responsibility for a URL scheme registered in 276 an alternative tree and documented by an Informational RFC. The 277 most common case of this will be to enable changes to be made to 278 schemes where the scheme name is privately owned by the rules of its 279 tree, and the owner of the scheme name has died, moved out of 280 contact or is otherwise unable to make changes that are important to 281 the community. 283 The IESG may reclassify a URL scheme created in an alternative tree 284 and documented via an Informational RFC as "historic" if it 285 determines that the scheme is no longer in use. 287 6.0 Registration Template 289 The following issues should be addressed when documenting a new URL 290 scheme: 292 URL scheme name. 294 URL scheme syntax. This should be expressed in a clear and 295 concise manner. The use of ABNF is encouraged. Please refer to 296 RFC [URL-GUIDELINES] for guidance on designing and explaining 297 your scheme's syntax. 299 Character encoding considerations. It is important to identify 300 what your scheme supports in this regard. It is obvious that for 301 interoperability, it is best if there is a means to support 302 character sets beyond USASCII, but especially for private 303 schemes, this may not be the case. 305 Intended usage. What sort of resource is being identified? If 306 this is not a 'resource' type of URL (e.g. mailto:), explain the 307 action that should be initiated by the consumer of the URL. If 308 there is a MIME type associated with this resource, please 309 identify it. 311 Applications and/or protocols which use this URL scheme name. 312 Including references to documentation which defines the 313 applications and/or protocols cited is especially useful. 315 Interoperability considerations. If you are aware of any details 316 regarding your scheme which might impact interoperability, please 317 identify them here. For example: proprietary or uncommon 318 encoding method; inability to support multibyte character sets; 319 incompatibility with types or versions of underlying protocol 320 (if scheme is tunneled over another protocol). 322 Security considerations. 324 Relevant publications. 326 Person & email address to contact for further information. 328 Author/Change controller. 330 Applications and/or protocols which use this URL scheme name. 332 7.0 Security Considerations 334 Information that creates or updates a registration needs to be 335 authenticated. 337 Information concerning possible security vulnerabilities of a 338 protocol may change over time. Consequently, claims as to the 339 security properties of a registered URL scheme may change as well. 340 As new vulnerabilities are discovered, information about such 341 vulnerabilities may need to be attached to existing documentation, 342 so that users are not misled as to the true security properties of a 343 registered URL scheme. 345 If the IESG agrees to delegate the registration and change control 346 functions of an alternative tree to a group or individual outside of 347 the IETF, that group or individual should have sufficient security 348 procedures in place to authenticate registration changes. 350 8.0 References 352 [1] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., Masinter, L., "Uniform Resource 353 Identifiers (URI): Generic Syntax", RFC 2396, August 1998 355 [2] Masinter, L., Alvestrand, H., Zigmond, D., Petke, R., 356 "Guidelines for new URL Schemes", RFC [URL-GUIDELINES], August 357 1998 359 [3] Postel, J., Reynolds, J., "Instructions to RFC Authors", 360 RFC 2223, October 1997. 362 9.0 Authors' Address 364 Rich Petke 365 UUNET Technologies 366 5000 Britton Road 367 P. O. Box 5000 368 Hilliard, OH 43026-5000 369 USA 370 Phone: +1 614 723 4157 371 Fax: +1 614 723 8407 372 Email: rpetke@wcom.net 374 Ian King 375 Microsoft Corporation 376 One Microsoft Way 377 Redmond, WA 98052-6399 378 USA 379 Phone: +1 425-703-2293 380 FAX: +1 425-936-7329 381 Email: iking@microsoft.com