I was recently pointed at:
1) The name of the registry (or sub-registry) being created and/or
maintained. The name will appear on the IANA web page and will
be referred to in future documents that need to allocate a
value from the new space. The full name (and abbreviation, if
appropriate) should be provided. It is highly desirable that
the chosen name not be easily confusable with the name of
another registry. When creating a sub-registry, the registry
that it is a part of should be clearly identified. When
referring to an already existing registry, providing a URL to
precisely identify the registry is helpful. All such URLs,
however, will be removed from the RFC prior to final
publication. For example, documents could contain: [TO BE
REMOVED: This registration should take place at the following
I have to say that I think that this is very very wrong.
1) Cool URIs do not change (<http://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/URI>).
2) If RFCs that define a registry can not carry a link to the registry,
the reader is actually forced to look up the registry using a search
engine. I think it's *far* more better to be optimistic and provide the
actual link, saving the reader one indirection step.
3) Also note: "It is highly desirable that the chosen name not be easily
confusable with the name of another registry." If that was "MUST be
unique", instead of this handwaving (sorry...), then we already would
have the necessary ingredient for a stable URI.
Instead, we should instruct IANA to actually maintain registry URIs they
have assigned. Note that this does not rule out format changes or
reorganizations; HTTP redirects exist for a reason.
Best regards, Julian
Ietf mailing list