Subject: Re: [Uri-review] Request to review coap: scheme

From: "Martin J. Dürst" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2011 11:41:04 +0900

On 2011/02/01 0:03, Klaus Hartke wrote:

> RFC 4395 "encourage[s] registration [of URI schemes] by setting a low
> barrier for provisional registrations." The syntax and semantics of
> the 'coap' scheme defined in I-D.ietf-core-coap-04 are pretty stable
> and should meet the requirements in RFC 4395 Section 2, but they are
> not finalized yet. So it makes sense to register the scheme
> provisionally (RFC 4395 Section 3).
>
> (a) Should the template for the provisional registration be in the
> draft and the template be updated to 'Permanent' if/when a standard is
> agreed; or
> (b) should the draft reflect what is intended to be in the final
> document and the template for the provisional registration be
> submitted directly to IANA?
>
> Please agree on one option :-)

Why not do both? And there are even multiple ways to do both:

Put a provisional registration template in an early draft, get IANA to 
register it based on that, then switch to permanent in the draft, which 
will be registered as part of IANA checking the draft in the RFC 
publication process.

Or you can put both templates in the draft and label the provisional one 
with a comment saying that the RFC editor should remove it.

Or you can have just one template, with a 'provisional' entry and a 
comment to the RFC editor and IANA to change that to 'permanent' upon 
approval and publication as an RFC.

Remember, the IETF and its processes (as in fact most processes) are not 
completely fixed to the last iota, but are there to get things done. 
It's most important that your draft be clear about what is (expected to 
be) happening.

Regards,   Martin.

-- 
#-# Martin J. Dürst, Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-# http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp   mailto:[email-masked]