Subject: [Uri-review] Please advise as to how to proceed

From: Tarek Al-Hariri <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2017 15:13:52 -0400

Hello,
Request for provisional uri, per text appended
Please advise accordingly.
Regards,

Scheme name:
  gdg

Status:
  Provisional.

Applications/protocols that use this scheme name:
  GDG

Contact:
  Tarek Hariri
  <tarekalhariri&gdg.io>
  GDG
  1255 23rd Street NW
  DC 20037-1125
  USA

Change controller:
  GDG

References:
  None
  (documentation will be publicly available (and, we suspect, largely
ignored) at https://dev.gdg.io/docs/spec as of 00:22 2017-10-10)

Scheme syntax:
  <gdg://> and <gdg:> are both valid:
  gdg://<host>[:port][/[<identifier>][<collection>]]
  gdg:<host>[:port][/[<identifier>][<collection>]]
  gdg:[<prefix>/<handleid>]

  where <prefix> maps one-to-one with a gdg handle identifier (eg.
10.22157, 20.500.12056, 20.500.12057) provides basic lookup / validation
for identifiers. (Technically, any non-gdg handle.net identifier, not just
gdg, should resolve, but this use is highly exotic and largely discouraged).

Scheme semantics:
  tl;dr Connecting to a gdg server, database, or cluster; retrieving a
record.

  Intended use includes operating systems or applicable environments (&c.)
with gdg application installed, or other means affording connection to a
gdg server.

Encoding considerations:
  The scheme and method portions of this proposed URI mitigate
confrontation with encoding issues by limiting itself to a subset of ASCII.
  URI query portion shall be encoded according to the rules in RFC 3986.

Interoperability considerations:
  none.

Security considerations:
  none.
  URI is not intended for transmission of senisitive data.

————

Regards,

Tarek Hariri

---

From: Graham Klyne <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 17:46:08 +0100

> Please advise accordingly.

It would help me if the template said something about what 'gdg' if for. 
(Saying "Connecting to a gdg server" doesn't really help me - a sentence and 
pointer to a description of what a GDG server does would be more helpful.)  In 
particular, I'd like to see some indication of what it is that a gdg URI 
actually identifies.

There's a typo in the security considerations ("senisitive").  Also, security is 
about more than just transmission (or not) of sensitive data.  It would be nice 
(but not required for a provisional registration) to see this dealt with more 
carefully.  I'd at least suggest dropping the "none" from that section.    It's 
OK for security considerations in the registration template to reference an 
existing document - we're not trying to make work here.  If you don't have any 
kind of security analysis, it would probably be better to just say so - that 
would not be a blocker for a provisional registration (though it wouldn't fly 
for a permanent registration).

See also:

- https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7595#section-4 -- in particular, I'd suggest 
putting the documentation online before actually requesting registration (see 
next).  Removing the bit about being ignored would look more professional, IMO.

- https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7595#section-7.2 -- in particular, bullet point 
4.  This list is the venue for review of proposed registrations (and it's good 
that you have sent your proposal here for review), but is not the place to send 
actual registration requests.

I'd recommend holding off sending your request to IANA until your spec is 
actually online - indeed, you might get more constructive feedback here if the 
spec is available for folks to see.

I hope this helps,

#g
--

> _______________________________________________
> Uri-review mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review
>