Subject: [Uri-review] Requesting review of 'notes' URI scheme per RFC7595 for permanent status

From: Doug Conmy <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2022 19:38:13 +0000

The scheme is currently provisional:   https://www.iana.org/assignments/uri-schemes/prov/notes

As I understand it, XML is the preferred format and has been included.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Doug Conmy

HCL Software

---

From: Graham Klyne <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2022 12:36:31 +0000

What are you asking to be reviewed?  I can't see any documentation.

An XML attachment isn't helpful for reviewing purposes, and I can't find any 
similarly-named published IETF draft.

I suggest that publication as an IETF draft and providing a link here would 
facilitate helpful reviews.

#g

On 21/02/2022 19:38, Doug Conmy wrote:
> The scheme is currently provisional: 
> https://www.iana.org/assignments/uri-schemes/prov/notes 
> <https://www.iana.org/assignments/uri-schemes/prov/notes>
> _______________________________________________
> Uri-review mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2022 17:21:02 +0100

> The scheme is currently provisional:   https://www.iana.org/assignments/uri-schemes/prov/notes

What is IBM Lotus Notes?  Do you have a reference for that?
I can’t find anything that would indicate this exists any more.

> As I understand it, XML is the preferred format and has been included.

I can’t parse this — where is that XML?

Grüße, Carsten

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2022 17:24:50 +0100

> I can’t parse this — where is that XML?

Sorry, it’s hidden in plain sight in an attachment.

Please go to https://datatracker.ietf.org/submit and submit this — this will make it much easier for people to understand what you are trying to do.

Grüße, Carsten

---

From: Doug Conmy <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2022 14:43:42 -0500

The submission has been submitted as an IETF draft.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dconmy-notes-uri-scheme/

----- Original message -----

From: "Graham Klyne" <[email-masked]>

To: "Doug Conmy" <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]

Cc: "Scott Vrusho" <[email-masked]>, "Robert S Sielken" <[email-masked]>

Subject: Re: [Uri-review] Requesting review of 'notes' URI scheme per RFC7595 for permanent status

Date: Wed, Feb 23, 2022 7:36 AM

#g

---

From: Doug Conmy <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2022 14:47:58 -0500

IBM Lotus Notes is a predecessor client version to HCL Notes which can be found in the informative reference, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HCL_Domino.   The product sale to HCL was finalized in 2019.

I have submitted the draft to here, apologies for not following the correct process.

----- Original message -----

From: "Carsten Bormann" <[email-masked]>

To: "Doug Conmy" <[email-masked]>

Cc: [email-masked], "Scott Vrusho" <[email-masked]>, "Robert S Sielken" <[email-masked]>

Date: Wed, Feb 23, 2022 11:21 AM

On 2022-02-21, at 20:38, Doug Conmy <[email-masked]> wrote:

Grüße, Carsten

---

From: Tim Bray <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2022 13:04:44 -0800

You might want to mention that % should be escaped as %25?

I'm curious as to why on earth this is happening in 2022, I haven't
encountered a Notes instance in years…

---

From: Graham Klyne <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2022 11:28:38 +0000

Doug, thanks for the link.

I'm struggling with my response to this:  my concern is that it's not clear 
that, as a proprietary-use scheme, this really qualifies for standardization 
(noting that the internet draft indicates an intent for standards-track 
publication).  For example, I'm not seeing any references to publicly available 
documentation of the wire protocol which is intended to be invoked when 
processing a 'notes' URI.  The references provided appear to be user-level 
documentation;  but I haven't trawled the document links in any detail, so I 
might be missing something.

Further, it's not clear to me from this document that the scheme as described 
meets the requirements laid out in RFC7595 for permanent registration:

   https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7595.html#section-3

I also note that the template doesn't fully conform to that specified in RFC7595:

   https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7595.html#section-7.4

(I noticed this, because there's no "status" field - I was initially expecting 
this to be a request for a "historic" registration - but I can't tell from the 
template.)

My reading of RFC7595 is that the current provisional registration is 
appropriate for 'notes' as a proprietary-use URI scheme, and I'm not seeing any 
indication in the document of any intention to make the Notes protocols 
public/open, which I would expect to be a precursor for standard or permanent 
status.

   https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7595.html#section-6

HTH

#g

On 23/02/2022 19:43, Doug Conmy wrote:
> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dconmy-notes-uri-scheme/>
> 
>      > <https://www.iana.org/assignments/uri-schemes/prov/notes
>     <https://www.iana.org/assignments/uri-schemes/prov/notes>>
>     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review>
> 
>

---

From: Graham Klyne <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2022 11:30:30 +0000

On 23/02/2022 21:04, Tim Bray wrote:
> I'm curious as to why on earth this is happening in 2022, I haven't encountered 
> a Notes instance in years…

Maybe of interest:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HCL_Domino

#g