Subject: RE: Ping

From: Ian King <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 13:51:08 -0800

Which is why we're trying to develop lightweight process for use where
appropriate.  The vnd tree process is pretty easy:

- let IANA know what you want to use for your vendor-ID
- make up your URLs based on that, and announce 'em, doc 'em, or NOT -- your
choice

It doesn't get much easier than that.  You want to plan for future
interoperability?  Cool, doc your scheme and submit an Informational RFC.
You want a proprietary URL scheme, but don't want someone accidentally
colliding with it?  OK, don't doc your scheme, but since it's your subtree,
others have no reason to make URLs that will collide with yours.  

I think this is lightweight enough to be easy, but useful enough to be worth
the minimal effort.  What's your opinion?  Thanks -- Ian

-----Original Message-----
From: Masataka Ohta [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, March 11, 1999 1:26 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: Ian King; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Ping

Craig;

>    As I'm sure you're aware, we do not have a meeting in Minneapolis;
however,
>    we do have a draft out there, <draft-ietf-urlreg-procedures-05.txt>.
I've
>    seen no public discussion of it -- is everyone satisfied with this?
(The
> 
> I'm speaking for myself and not the group as a whole, but I'm not sure
> that _anyone_ is satisfied with it.  My recollection is that after it
> was last revised, I asked a number of questions (so, how does one get
> an OID?  is the process cheap and easy?  etc.) and that there were no
> good answers to these questions.  Also, the properties that some
> people had thought best about it appeared to vanish upon closer
> examination.
> 
> Again, speaking for myself, I don't see myself using any number-based
> scheme.

Why do we have to bother?

The reality is that people use new URL names without bothering
to register them to IANA.

IETF has lost the control because it tried to make the registration
restrictive.

							Masataka Ohta