And while I'm happy we can finesse this particular case by using some syntax
and semantic tricks, I have to point out that some of the assertions made in
reviewing the original URL scheme proposal were quite simply wrong, and it's
exactly the sort of mistake the IETF makes on a depressingly regular basis.
In particular, the original response to this registration stated that:
The use and deployment of new URI schemes in the Internet infrastructure is
costly
...
So again, being able to finesse the issue here is good. But sooner or later
we're going to have to face up to the fact that our, I guess I'd call it
registration philosophy, is increasingly at odds with how protocols are
actually defined and used.
Indeed, and that's what I was getting at when I said this:
The second is possible, but I actually think it's a
*worse* idea to define a URN namespace for "addrbook" than it is to
make a URI scheme for it.
I don't see the harm to the Internet, to the registry, or to the
concept of URIs of being fairly free in approving new URI schemes.
But unless we rev BCP 115 (RFC 4395), that won't change.
Barry
_______________________________________________
sieve mailing list
sieve(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sieve