Status of this Memo

This document is an Internet-Draft and is subject to all provisions of section 3 of RFC 3667. By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with RFC 3668.

Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.

Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

This Internet-Draft will expire on April 19, 2005.

Copyright Notice

Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).

Abstract

This document revises the registration procedures given in RFC 2717 based on five years of experience. It simplifies the requirements for getting a scheme listed by IANA by removing the technical review and allowing multiple registrants to share a scheme name.

1. Introduction

RFC 2717Petke, R. and I. King, Registration Procedures for URL Scheme Names, November 1999.[RFC2717] describes the current mechanism for registering new URL schemes. There is widespread dissatisfaction in the Internet community with these procedures, which has led to many people simply ignoring them and using unregistered schemes in many widely-deployed applications.

This document revises the procedures in RFC 2717 to make registration much simpler and more definitive, at a cost of allowing some schemes to have multiple registrations. The basic structure of the new procedure is:

• Scheme names in the registry can have multiple entries for the name. There is no "first come, first served" restriction on a name.
• After an RFC that registers a scheme name is published, the RFC is entered into the registry and the name is then closed to additional entries.
• There is no technical review of registrations, only a minor secretarial review (and a check whether or not the name's registration is already closed).
• Schemes in the current IANA registry are closed to new registrations.

2. Procedure for Registering

The registrant should first check the IANA scheme name registry to see whether or not there is already an entry for the name desired and, if so, whether the name's registration is closed. If it is not closed (or there is no entry under the name yet), the registrant may register the name by submitting the template shown here to IANA.

Upon receipt of the filled-in template, IANA:

1. Checks the submission for completeness.
2. Checks the current registry for an entry of that name. If such a registry exists, checks that the registry is not closed. If it is closed, IANA rejects the registration request.
3. Checks the URL given in the request, makes sure it is alive, and checks that it generally describes the URL scheme being registered.
4. [[ Possibly more here. ]]
5. Fills in the registry.

2.1 Registration Template

[[ Use same template as RFC 2717, but add "URL of document more completely describing the scheme". ]]

2.2 Registering from RFCs

[[ Needs to be filled in. Similar to steps as above, but with the addition of marking the name's registry as "closed" after entering the new entry. ]]

3. IANA Considerations

Clearly, this whole document is about IANA considerations.

3.1 Converting the current registry to the new format

[[ Stuff here about adding URLs. ]]

[[ Adding an indicator for each current name that the name is closed because all current names start off closed. ]]

3.2 Registering new names

[[ How to start a new name entry ]]

3.3 Adding additional registrations to existing names

[[ Checking that the name is actually open ]]

3.4 Registering names from RFCs

[[ Making it the last entry; closing out the name ]]

4. Security Considerations

There are no known security issues with the new registration mechanism.

5 Normative References

Author's Address

Intellectual Property Statement

The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org.

Disclaimer of Validity

This document and the information contained herein are provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Copyright Statement

Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.

Acknowledgment

Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society.