Couldn't IANA just implement the "search format" as
http://www.iana.org/assignments/Registry-Name
and cut out the middle man?
Regarding the "20 year" argument, it seems to imply that one of the following
will happen in that time scale:
1) HTTP will be replaced by another protocol in a non-backwards-compatible
fashion, and support in software is dropped (i.e., obviating all existing HTTP
URLs), or
2) URIs themselves will be replaced in a non-backwards-compatible way, and
URI-handling software disappears (obviating all URIs, period), or
3) The domain name system crashes and burns irrevocably, or
4) IANA loses legal control of iana.org, or
5) IANA lacks the organisational ability to guarantee stable identifiers for
its products, or
6) No Web serving software is available that gives IANA the ability to
control their own URI path components, and it is illegal for them to write it
themselves.
If #1 or #2 happens (unlikely), we will have enough warning to revise the RFCs
as appropriate, or provide a mapping to the new way of doing things. Not fun,
but a reasonably calculated risk, given the shelf life of most IETF products.
If #3 - #6 happens (likelihood is reader-deterimined), we've got far worse
problems than some RFCs whose registries can't be easily found -- A STATE THAT
I WOULD MENTION WE ARE ALREADY IN TODAY.
*shakes head in disbelief*
--
Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf