Hi Tom,
At 00:50 12-01-11, t.petch wrote:
This is a provisional registration of an URI scheme (for which a provisional
registration already exists in IANA) so it is the rules of RFC4395
which apply.
Except that they do not appear to cater for re-registration of a provisional
scheme.
The nearest would appear to be
" o Contact information identifying the person supplying the
registration is included. Previously unregistered URI schemes
discovered in use may be registered by third parties on behalf of
those who created the URI scheme; in this case, both the
registering party and the scheme creator SHOULD be identified."
and it is the complete lack of the original scheme creator that
concerns me. Yes we have contact details for the third party
but that is not enough.
Agreed.
RFC 1738 reserves a scheme name for tn3270. There is also a TN3270E
defined in RFC 2335. The Introduction section of
draft-yevstifeyev-tn3270-uri-12 mentions RFC 1738 while the scheme
definition seems to cover TN3270 and TN3270E.
The Security Considerations section does not look like a clear
analysis (see RFC 4395).
One of the points you mentioned is that there is already a
provisional registration in the URI Schemes registry. The proposal
mentions that there are no clear and acceptable specifications so far
while saying that the URI is similar to Telnet.
I am reluctant to take a position on this draft.
Regards,
-sm
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf