Subject: Update: draft-ietf-urlreg-procedures-08.txt

From: Ian King <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 26 Sep 1999 22:03:48 -0700

Based on recent mail threads, I have amended this draft to address concerns
raised by our Area Directors and members of the WG; this is in response to
some real life issues that recently arose relative to a proposed URL scheme.
In particular, I've amended paragraph 3.2 to more carefully describe when
one may or may not use an Informational RFC to accomplish registration of a
URL scheme name.  I've previously sent out mail to the list with the
suggested language, and had few comments, so here it is, folks.  

Comments?  Let me have 'em.  Thanks -- Ian 

Ian King <[email-masked]>
Speech Product Group
MICROSOFT CORPORATION

---

From: "Michael A. Dolan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 11:25:03 -0700

Ian-

1. Does the intent of the 3rd sentence of 3.2 meet the requirements 
of a BCP document?  If so, would it be clearer/simpler to simply say 
it MAY be a BCP, and leave the use of Informational at the discretion 
of the IESG for unusual circumstances?

2. The registration process for an alternative tree seems vague.  A 
few "workable" requirements are stated in 4.2, "change control" is 
addressed in 3.3, and registration procedures for teh actual schemes 
is implied.  But I'm not sure I could figure out how to register a 
new tree from this draft alone.  Is there other work in this area 
that covers this?

Thanks,
	Mike

>Ian King <[email-masked]>

-----------------------------------------------------
Michael A. Dolan  TerraByte Technology  (619)445-9070    
PO Box 1673 Alpine, CA 91903       FAX: (619)445-6122
URL:http://www.tbt.com