[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: (RFC 4395) 00 draft-ietf-iri-4395bis-irireg

Network Working Group                                          T. Hansen
Internet-Draft                                         AT&T Laboratories
Obsoletes: 4395 (if approved)                                  T. Hardie
Intended status: BCP                     Panasonic Wireless Research Lab
Expires: April 3, 2011                                       L. Masinter
                                                           Adobe Systems
                                                      September 30, 2010

     Guidelines and Registration Procedures for New URI/IRI Schemes


   This document updates the guidelines and recommendations for the
   definition of Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) schemes, and extends
   the registry and guidelines to apply when the schemes are used with
   Internationalized Resource Identifiers (IRIs).  It also updates the
   process and IANA registry for URI/IRI schemes.  It obsoletes RFC

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   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."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on April 3, 2011.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect

Hansen, et al.            Expires April 3, 2011                 [Page 1]

Internet-Draft             New URI/IRI Schemes            September 2010

   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Conformance Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   3.  Guidelines for Permanent URI/IRI Scheme Definitions  . . . . .  4
     3.1.  Demonstratable, New, Long-Lived Utility  . . . . . . . . .  4
     3.2.  Syntactic Compatibility  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     3.3.  Well-Defined . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     3.4.  Definition of Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     3.5.  Context of Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     3.6.  Internationalization and Character Encoding  . . . . . . .  7
     3.7.  Clear Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     3.8.  Scheme Name Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   4.  Guidelines for Provisional URI/IRI Scheme Registration . . . .  8
   5.  Guidelines for Historical URI/IRI Scheme Registration  . . . .  9
   6.  URI/IRI Scheme Registration Procedure  . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     6.1.  General  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     6.2.  Registration Procedures  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     6.3.  Change Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     6.4.  URI/IRI Scheme Registration Template . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   7.  The "example" Scheme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   8.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   9.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   Appendix A.  Changes Since RFC 4395  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Hansen, et al.            Expires April 3, 2011                 [Page 2]

Internet-Draft             New URI/IRI Schemes            September 2010

1.  Introduction

   The Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) protocol element and generic
   syntax is defined by [5].  Each URI begins with a scheme name, as
   defined by Section 3.1 of RFC 3986, that refers to a specification
   for identifiers within that scheme.  The URI syntax provides a
   federated and extensible naming system, where each scheme's
   specification may further restrict the syntax and semantics of
   identifiers using that scheme.  As originally defined, URIs only
   allowed a limited repertoire of characters chosen from US-ASCII.  An
   Interationalized Resource Identifier (IRI) as defined by [7], extends
   the URI syntax to allow characters from a much greater repertoire, to
   accomodate resource identifiers from the world's languages.  The same
   schemes used in URIs are used in IRIs.  The term Resource Identifier
   (RI) is used as a shorthand for both URIs and IRIs.

   This document extends the URI scheme registry to be a registry of
   URI/IRI schemes (i.e., applicable to both URIs and IRIs).  This
   document also provides updated guidelines for the definition of new
   schemes, for consideration by those who are defining, registering, or
   evaluating those definitions, as well as a process and mechanism for
   registering URI/IRI schemes within the IANA URI scheme registry.  The
   registry has two parts: 'provisional' and 'permanent', with different
   requirements.  Guidelines and requirements for both parts are given.

   This document obsoletes RFC 4395 [12], which in turn obsoleted RFCs
   2717 [8] and 2718 [9].  RFCs 2717 and 2718 drew a distinction between
   'locators' (identifiers used for accessing resources available on the
   Internet) and 'names' (identifiers used for naming possibly abstract
   resources, independent of any mechanism for accessing them).  The
   intent was to use the designation "URL" (Uniform Resource Locator)
   for those identifiers that were locators and "URN" (Uniform Resource
   Name) for those identifiers that were names.  In practice, the line
   between 'locator' and 'name' has been difficult to draw: locators can
   be used as names, and names can be used as locators.  As a result,
   recent documents have used the terms "URI"/"IRI" for all resource
   identifiers, avoiding the term "URL" and reserving the term "URN"
   explicitly for those URIs/IRIs using the "urn" scheme name ([2]).
   URN "namespaces" ([10]) are specific to the "urn" scheme and not
   covered explicitly by this specification.

   RFC 2717 defined a set of registration trees in which URI schemes
   could be registered, one of which was called the IETF Tree, to be
   managed by IANA.  RFC 2717 proposed that additional registration
   trees might be approved by the IESG.  However, no such registration
   trees have been submitted.  This document eliminates RFC 2717's
   distinction between different 'trees' for URI schemes; instead there
   is a single namespace for registered values.  Within that namespace,

Hansen, et al.            Expires April 3, 2011                 [Page 3]

Internet-Draft             New URI/IRI Schemes            September 2010

   there are values that are approved as meeting a set of criteria for
   URI schemes.  Other scheme names may also be registered
   provisionally, without necessarily meeting those criteria.  The
   intent of the registry is to:

   o  provide a central point of discovery for established URI/IRI
      scheme names, and easy location of their defining documents;
   o  discourage use of the same scheme name for different purposes;
   o  help those proposing new scheme names to discern established
      trends and conventions, and avoid names that might be confused
      with existing ones;
   o  encourage registration by setting a low barrier for provisional

   RFC 3987 [6] introduced a new protocol element, the Internationalized
   Resource Identifier (IRI), by defining a mapping between URIs and
   IRIs. [7] updates this definition, allowing an IRI to be interpreted
   directly without translating into a URI.  There is no separate,
   independent registry or registration process for IRIs: the URI Scheme
   Registry is to be used for both URIs and IRIs.  Previously, those who
   wish to describe resource identifiers that are useful as IRIs were
   encouraged to define the corresponding URI syntax, and note that the
   IRI usage follows the rules and transformations defined in [6].  This
   document changes that advice to encourage explicit definition of the
   scheme and allowable syntax elements within the larger character
   repertoire of IRIs, as defined by [7].

2.  Conformance Guidelines

   Within this document, the key words MUST, MAY, SHOULD, REQUIRED,
   RECOMMENDED, and so forth are used within the general meanings
   established in [1], within the context that they are requirements on
   future registration specifications.

3.  Guidelines for Permanent URI/IRI Scheme Definitions

   This section gives considerations for new URI/IRI schemes.  Meeting
   these guidelines is REQUIRED for permanent scheme registration.
   Meeting these guidelines is also RECOMMENDED for provisional
   registration, as described in Section 4.

3.1.  Demonstratable, New, Long-Lived Utility

   The use and deployment of new URI/IRI schemes in the Internet
   infrastructure is costly; some parts of URI/IRI processing may be
   scheme-dependent, and deployed software already processes URIs and

Hansen, et al.            Expires April 3, 2011                 [Page 4]

Internet-Draft             New URI/IRI Schemes            September 2010

   IRIs of well-known schemes.  Introducing a new scheme may require
   additional software, not only for client software and user agents but
   also in additional parts of the network infrastructure (gateways,
   proxies, caches) [14].  URI/IRI schemes constitute a single, global
   namespace; it is desirable to avoid contention over use of short,
   mnemonic scheme names.  For these reasons, the unbounded registration
   of new schemes is harmful.  New URI/IRI schemes SHOULD have clear
   utility to the broad Internet community, beyond that available with
   already registered URI/IRI schemes.

3.2.  Syntactic Compatibility

   [5] defines the generic syntax for all URI schemes, along with the
   syntax of common URI components that are used by many URI schemes to
   define hierarchical identifiers. [6] and [7] extended this generic
   syntax to cover IRIs.  All URI/IRI scheme specifications MUST define
   their own syntax such that all strings matching their scheme-specific
   syntax will also match the <absolute-URI> grammar described in [7].

   New schemes SHOULD reuse the common components of [7] for the
   definition of hierarchical naming schemes.  However, if there is a
   strong reason for a scheme not to use the hierarchical syntax, then
   the new scheme definition SHOULD follow the syntax of previously
   registered schemes.

   Schemes that are not intended for use with relative URIs/IRIs SHOULD
   avoid use of the forward slash "/" character, which is used for
   hierarchical delimiters, and the complete path segments "." and ".."

   Avoid improper use of "//".  The use of double slashes in the first
   part of a URI/IRI is not an artistic indicator that what follows is a
   URI/IRI: Double slashes are used ONLY when the syntax of the <scheme-
   specific-part> contains a hierarchical structure.  In URIs and IRIs
   from such schemes, the use of double slashes indicates that what
   follows is the top hierarchical element for a naming authority.
   (Section 3.2 of RFC 3986 has more details.)  Schemes that do not
   contain a conformant hierarchical structure in their <scheme-
   specific-part> SHOULD NOT use double slashes following the
   "<scheme>:" string.

   New schemes SHOULD clearly define the role of [5] reserved characters
   in URIs/IRIs of the scheme being defined.  The syntax of the new
   scheme should be clear about which of the "reserved" set of
   characters are used as delimiters within the URIs/IRIs of the new
   scheme, and when those characters must be escaped, versus when they
   may be used without escaping.

Hansen, et al.            Expires April 3, 2011                 [Page 5]

Internet-Draft             New URI/IRI Schemes            September 2010

3.3.  Well-Defined

   While URIs/IRIs may or may not be defined as locators in practice, a
   scheme definition itself MUST be clear as to how it is expected to
   function.  Schemes that are not intended to be used as locators
   SHOULD describe how the resource identified can be determined or
   accessed by software that obtains a URI/IRI of that scheme.

   For schemes that function as locators, it is important that the
   mechanism of resource location be clearly defined.  This might mean
   different things depending on the nature of the scheme.

   In many cases, new schemes are defined as ways to translate between
   other namespaces or protocols and the general framework of URIs.  For
   example, the "ftp" scheme translates into the FTP protocol, while the
   "mid" scheme translates into a Message-ID identifier of an email
   message.  For such schemes, the description of the mapping must be
   complete, and in sufficient detail so that the mapping in both
   directions is clear: how to map from a URI/IRI into an identifier or
   set of protocol actions or name in the target namespace, and how
   legal values in the base namespace, or legal protocol interactions,
   might be represented in a valid URI or IRI.  In particular, the
   mapping should describe the mechanisms for encoding binary or
   character strings within valid character sequences in a URI/IRI (See
   Section 3.6 for guidelines).  If not all legal values or protocol
   interactions of the base standard can be represented using the
   scheme, the definition should be clear about which subset are
   allowed, and why.

3.4.  Definition of Operations

   As part of the definition of how a URI/IRI identifies a resource, a
   scheme definition SHOULD define the applicable set of operations that
   may be performed on a resource using the RI as its identifier.  A
   model for this is HTTP; an HTTP resource can be operated on by GET,
   POST, PUT, and a number of other operations available through the
   HTTP protocol.  The scheme definition should describe all well-
   defined operations on the resource identifier, and what they are
   supposed to do.

   Some schemes don't fit into the "information access" paradigm of
   URIs/IRIs.  For example, "telnet" provides location information for
   initiating a bi-directional data stream to a remote host; the only
   operation defined is to initiate the connection.  In any case, the
   operations appropriate for a scheme should be documented.

   Note: It is perfectly valid to say that "no operation apart from GET
   is defined for this RI".  It is also valid to say that "there's only

Hansen, et al.            Expires April 3, 2011                 [Page 6]

Internet-Draft             New URI/IRI Schemes            September 2010

   one operation defined for this RI, and it's not very GET-like".  The
   important point is that what is defined on this scheme is described.

3.5.  Context of Use

   In general, URIs/IRIs are used within a broad range of protocols and
   applications.  Most commonly, URIs/IRIs are used as references to
   resources within directories or hypertext documents, as hyperlinks to
   other resources.  In some cases, a scheme is intended for use within
   a different, specific set of protocols or applications.  If so, the
   scheme definition SHOULD describe the intended use and include
   references to documentation that define the applications and/or
   protocols cited.

3.6.  Internationalization and Character Encoding

   When describing schemes in which (some of) the elements of the URI or
   IRI are actually representations of human-readable text, care should
   be taken not to introduce unnecessary variety in the ways in which
   characters are encoded into octets and then into characters; see [7]
   and Section 2.5 of RFC 3986 [5] for guidelines.  If URIs/IRIs of a
   scheme contain any text fields, the scheme definition MUST describe
   the ways in which characters are encoded and any compatibility issues
   with IRIs of the scheme.

   Specifications for IRIs schemes MUST be described in terms of
   processing an IRI as a sequence of Unicode codepoints, without
   reference to the encoding of those code points as a sequence of
   bytes, using UTF-8 or UTF-16.  The scheme specification SHOULD be as
   restrictive as possible regarding what characters are allowed in the
   URI/IRI, because some characters can create several different
   security considerations (see for example [13]).

3.7.  Clear Security Considerations

   Definitions of schemes MUST be accompanied by a clear analysis of the
   security implications for systems that use the scheme; this follows
   the practice of Security Consideration sections within IANA
   registrations [3].

   In particular, Section 7 of RFC 3986 [5] describes general security
   considerations for URIs, while Section ??? of [7] gives those for
   IRIs.  The definition of an individual URI/IRI scheme should note
   which of these apply to the specified scheme.

Hansen, et al.            Expires April 3, 2011                 [Page 7]

Internet-Draft             New URI/IRI Schemes            September 2010

3.8.  Scheme Name Considerations

   Section 3.1 of RFC 3986 defines the syntax of a URI scheme name; this
   sytax remains the same for IRIs.  New registered schemes
   registrations MUST follow this syntax, which only allows a limited
   repertoire of characters (taken from US-ASCII).  Although the syntax
   for the scheme name in URI/IRIs is case insensitive, the scheme names
   itself MUST be registered using lowercase letters.

   URI/IRI scheme names should be short, but also sufficiently
   descriptive and distinguished to avoid problems.

   Avoid names or other symbols that might cause problems with rights to
   use the name in IETF specifications and Internet protocols.  For
   example, be careful with trademark and service mark names.  (See
   Section 7.4 of RFC 3978 [4].)

   Avoid using names that are either very general purpose or associated
   in the community with some other application or protocol.  Avoid
   scheme names that are overly general or grandiose in scope (e.g.,
   that allude to their "universal" or "standard" nature.)

   Organizations that desire a private name space for URI scheme names
   are encouraged to use a prefix based on their domain name, expressed
   in reverse order.  For example, a URI scheme name of com-example-info
   might be registered by the vendor that owns the example.com domain

4.  Guidelines for Provisional URI/IRI Scheme Registration

   While the guidelines in Section 3 are REQUIRED for permanent
   registration, they are RECOMMENDED for provisional registration.  For
   a provisional registration, the following are REQUIRED:

   o  The scheme name meets the syntactic requirements of Section 3.8.
   o  There is not already an entry with the same scheme name.  (In the
      unfortunate case that there are multiple, different uses of the
      same scheme name, the IESG may approve a request to modify an
      existing entry to note the separate use.)
   o  Contact information identifying the person supplying the
      registration is included.  Previously unregistered schemes
      discovered in use may be registered by third parties (even if not
      on behalf of those who created the scheme).  In this case, both
      the registering party and the scheme creator SHOULD be identified.
   o  If no permanent, citable specification for the scheme definition
      is included, credible reasons for not providing it should be

Hansen, et al.            Expires April 3, 2011                 [Page 8]

Internet-Draft             New URI/IRI Schemes            September 2010

   o  A valid Security Considerations section, as required by Section 6
      of [3].
   o  If the scheme definition does not meet the guidelines laid out in
      Section 3, the differences and reasons SHOULD be noted.

5.  Guidelines for Historical URI/IRI Scheme Registration

   In some circumstances, it is appropriate to note a URI scheme that
   was once in use or registered but for whatever reason is no longer in
   common use or the use is not recommended.  In this case, it is
   possible for an individual to request that the scheme be registered
   (newly, or as an update to an existing registration) as 'historical'.
   Any scheme that is no longer in common use MAY be designated as
   historical; the registration should contain some indication to where
   the scheme was previously defined or documented.

6.  URI/IRI Scheme Registration Procedure

6.1.  General

   The URI/IRI registration process is described in the terminology of
   [3].  The registration process is an optional mailing list review,
   followed by "Expert Review".  The registration request should note
   the desired status.  The Designated Expert will evaluate the request
   against the criteria of the requested status.  In the case of a
   permanent registration request, the Designated Expert may:
   o  Accept the specification of the scheme for permanent registration.
   o  Suggest provisional registration instead.
   o  Request IETF review and IESG approval; in the meanwhile, suggest
      provisional registration.

   URI/IRI scheme definitions contained within other IETF documents
   (Informational, Experimental, or Standards-Track RFCs) must also
   undergo Expert Review; in the case of Standards-Track documents,
   permanent registration status approval is required.

6.2.  Registration Procedures

   Someone wishing to register a new URI/IRI scheme SHOULD:

   1.  Check the IANA URI scheme registry to see whether or not there is
       already an entry for the desired name.  If there is already an
       entry under the name, choose a different URI scheme name, or
       update the existing scheme definition.

Hansen, et al.            Expires April 3, 2011                 [Page 9]

Internet-Draft             New URI/IRI Schemes            September 2010

   2.  Prepare a URI/IRI scheme registration template, as specified in
       Section 6.4.  The scheme registration template may be contained
       in an Internet Draft, submitted alone, or as part of some other
       permanently available, stable, protocol specification.  The
       template may also be submitted in some other form (as part of
       another document or as a stand-alone document), but the contents
       will be treated as an "IETF Contribution" under the guidelines of
       RFC 3978 [4].
   3.  Send a copy of the template or a pointer to the containing
       document (with specific reference to the section with the
       template) to the mailing list uri-review@ietf.org, requesting
       review.  In addition, request review on other relevant mailing
       lists as appropriate.  For example, general discussion of URI/IRI
       syntactical issues could be discussed on uri@w3.org; schemes for
       a network protocol could be discussed on a mailing list for that
       protocol.  Allow a reasonable time for discussion and comments.
       Four weeks is reasonable for a permanent registration requests.
   4.  Respond to review comments and make revisions to the proposed
       registration as needed to bring it into line with the guidelines
       given in this document.
   5.  Submit the (possibly updated) registration template (or pointer
       to document containing it) to IANA at iana@iana.org, specifying
       whether 'permanent' or 'provisional' registration is requested.

   Upon receipt of a URI/IRI scheme registration request, the following
   steps MUST be followed:

   1.  IANA checks the submission for completeness; if sections are
       missing or citations are not correct, IANA may reject the
       registration request.
   2.  IANA checks the current registry for a entry with the same name;
       if such a registry exists, IANA may reject the registration
   3.  IANA requests Expert Review of the registration request against
       the corresponding guidelines (from this document.)
   4.  The Designated Expert may request additional review or
       discussion, as necessary.
   5.  If Expert Review recommends registration 'provisional' or
       'permanent' registration, IANA adds the registration to the
       appropriate registry.
   6.  Unless Expert Review has explicitly rejected the registration
       request within two weeks, IANA should automatically add the
       registration in the 'provisional' registry.

   Either based on an explicit request or independently initiated, the
   Designated Expert or IESG may request the upgrade of a 'provisional'
   registration to a 'permanent' one.  In such cases, IANA should move
   the corresponding entry from the provisional registry.

Hansen, et al.            Expires April 3, 2011                [Page 10]

Internet-Draft             New URI/IRI Schemes            September 2010

6.3.  Change Control

   Registrations may be updated in each registry by the same mechanism
   as required for an initial registration.  In cases where the original
   definition of the scheme is contained in an IESG-approved document,
   update of the specification also requires IESG approval.

   Provisional registrations may be updated by the original registrant
   or anyone designated by the original registrant.  In addition, the
   IESG may reassign responsibility for a provisional registration
   scheme, or may request specific changes to a scheme registration.
   This will enable changes to be made to schemes where the original
   registrant is out of contact, or unwilling or unable to make changes.

   Transition from 'provisional' to 'permanent' status may be requested
   and approved in the same manner as a new 'permanent' registration.
   Transition from 'permanent' to 'historical' status requires IESG
   approval.  Transition from 'provisional' to 'historical' may be
   requested by anyone authorized to update the provisional

6.4.  URI/IRI Scheme Registration Template

   This template describes the fields that must be supplied in a URI/IRI
   scheme registration request:

   Resource Identifier (RI) Scheme name.
      See Section 3.8 for guidelines.
      This reflects the status requested, and should be one of
      'permanent', 'provisional', or 'historical'.
   Scheme syntax.
      See Section 3.2 for guidelines.
   Scheme semantics.
      See Section 3.3 and Section 3.4 for guidelines.
   Encoding considerations.
      See Section 3.3 and Section 3.6 for guidelines.
   Applications/protocols that use this scheme name.
      See Section 3.5.
   Interoperability considerations.
      If the person or group registering the scheme is aware of any
      details regarding the scheme that might impact interoperability,
      identify them here.  For example: proprietary or uncommon encoding
      methods; inability to support multibyte character sets;
      incompatibility with types or versions of any underlying protocol.

Hansen, et al.            Expires April 3, 2011                [Page 11]

Internet-Draft             New URI/IRI Schemes            September 2010

   Security considerations.
      See Section 3.7 for guidelines.
      Person (including contact information) to contact for further
   Author/Change controller.
      Person (including contact information) authorized to change this,
      if a provisional registration.
      Include full citations for all referenced documents.  Registration
      templates for provisional registration may be included in an
      Internet Draft; when the documents expire or are approved for
      publication as an RFC, the registration will be updated.

7.  The "example" Scheme

   There is a need for a URI/IRI Scheme name that can be used for
   examples in documentation without fear of conflicts with current or
   future actual schemes.  The URI/IRI Scheme "example" is hereby
   registered as a Permanent URI/IRI Scheme for that purpose.
   Scheme name  example
   Status  permanent
   Scheme syntax  The entire range of allowable syntax for URI/IRI
      schemes specified in [7] is allowed for "example" URI/IRIs.
   Scheme semantics  URI/IRIs in the "example" scheme should be used for
      documentation purposes only.  The use of "example" URIs/IRIs must
      not be used as locators, identify any resources, or specify any
      particular set of operations.
   Encoding considerations  See Section 2.5 of [5] for guidelines.
   Applications/protocols that use this URI scheme name  The "example"
      URI should be used for documentation purposes only.  It MUST not
      be used for any protocol.
   Interoperability considerations  None.
   Security considerations  None.
   Contact  N/A
   Author/Change controller  IETF
   References  This RFC XXXX.
      RFC Editor Note: Replace XXXX with this RFC's reference.

8.  IANA Considerations

   Previously, the former "URL Scheme" registry was replaced by the
   Uniform Resource Identifier scheme registry.  The process was based
   on [3] "Expert Review" with an initial (optional) mailing list

Hansen, et al.            Expires April 3, 2011                [Page 12]

Internet-Draft             New URI/IRI Schemes            September 2010

   The updated template has an additional field for the status of the
   scheme, and the procedures for entering new name schemes have been
   augmented.  Section 6 establishes the process for new URI/IRI scheme

   The example URI scheme "example" is hereby registered.  (See the
   template above for registration.)

9.  Security Considerations

   All registered values are expected to contain accurate security
   consideration sections; 'permanent' registered scheme names are
   expected to contain complete definitions.

   Information concerning possible security vulnerabilities of a
   protocol may change over time.  Consequently, claims as to the
   security properties of a registered URI/IRI scheme may change as
   well.  As new vulnerabilities are discovered, information about such
   vulnerabilities may need to be attached to existing documentation, so
   that users are not misled as to the true security properties of a
   registered URI scheme.

10.  Acknowledgements

   Many thanks to Patrick Faltstrom for his comments on this version.

   Many thanks to Paul Hoffmann, Ira McDonald, Roy Fielding, Stu Weibel,
   Tony Hammond, Charles Lindsey, Mark Baker, and other members of the
   uri@w3.org mailing list for their comments on earlier versions.

   Parts of this document are based on [8], [9] and [11].  Some of the
   ideas about use of URIs were taken from the "Architecture of the
   World Wide Web" [14].

Hansen, et al.            Expires April 3, 2011                [Page 13]

Internet-Draft             New URI/IRI Schemes            September 2010

Appendix A.  Changes Since RFC 4395

   1.  Significant edits to be clear that a "URI scheme" and an "IRI
       scheme" are the same thing.
   2.  Added the "example:" URL Scheme.
   3.  Allow for IRI-specific scheme registration.
   4.  Clarify that the URI scheme registry is also the IRI scheme

11.  References

11.1.  Normative References

   [1]   Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
         Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [2]   Moats, R., "URN Syntax", RFC 2141, May 1997.

   [3]   Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA
         Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434,
         October 1998.

   [4]   Bradner, S., "IETF Rights in Contributions", RFC 3978,
         March 2005.

   [5]   Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
         Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66, RFC 3986,
         January 2005.

   [6]   Duerst, M. and M. Suignard, "Internationalized Resource
         Identifiers (IRIs)", RFC 3987, January 2005.

   [7]   Duerst, M., Masinter, L., and M. Suignard, "Internationalized
         Resource Identifiers (IRIs)", September 2010,

11.2.  Informative References

   [8]   Petke, R. and I. King, "Registration Procedures for URL Scheme
         Names", BCP 35, RFC 2717, November 1999.

   [9]   Masinter, L., Alvestrand, H., Zigmond, D., and R. Petke,
         "Guidelines for new URL Schemes", RFC 2718, November 1999.

   [10]  Daigle, L., van Gulik, D., Iannella, R., and P. Faltstrom,
         "Uniform Resource Names (URN) Namespace Definition Mechanisms",
         BCP 66, RFC 3406, October 2002.

Hansen, et al.            Expires April 3, 2011                [Page 14]

Internet-Draft             New URI/IRI Schemes            September 2010

   [11]  Klyne, G., Nottingham, M., and J. Mogul, "Registration
         Procedures for Message Header Fields", BCP 90, RFC 3864,
         September 2004.

   [12]  Hansen, T., Hardie, T., and L. Masinter, "Guidelines and
         Registration Procedures for New URI Schemes", BCP 35, RFC 4395,
         February 2006.

   [13]  Klensin, J., Faltstrom, P., Karp, C., and IAB, "Review and
         Recommendations for Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs)",
         RFC 4690, September 2006.

   [14]  W3C Technical Architecture Group, "Architecture of the World
         Wide Web, Volume One", December 2004,

Authors' Addresses

   Tony Hansen
   AT&T Laboratories
   200 Laurel Ave.
   Middletown, NJ  07748

   Email: tony+urireg@maillennium.att.com

   Ted Hardie
   Panasonic Wireless Research Lab
   10900 Tantau Ave.
   Cupertino, CA

   Phone: +1 408 628 5864
   Email: ted.ietf@gmail.com

   Larry Masinter
   Adobe Systems
   345 Park Ave.
   San Jose, CA  95110

   Phone: +1 408 536 3024
   Email: LMM@acm.org
   URI:   http://larry.masinter.net

Hansen, et al.            Expires April 3, 2011                [Page 15]

Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129b, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/