I just wanted to tip my hat to the folks on the mailing list for treating this submission with much more respect and patience than it probably deserved; an admirable display of adulthood and restraint.
On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 11:31 AM Larry Masinter <LMM@xxxxxxx> wrote:
RFC 7595, "Guidelines and Registration Procedures for URI Schemes", June 2015
as modified by https://www.rfc-editor..org/errata/rfc7595 was a mistake.
The idea behind RFC 7595 was to change https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp35 to make “provisional” registration FCFS.
And the errata was correct in its identification of the problem that FCFS is incompatible with having requirements that need to be checked.
But the proper remedy (as this case shows) should have been to change it back to “expert review” as it was in RFC 4395.
If “expert review” could optionally be accomplished by (dis)approving a Pull Request in an IANA-maintained Git repository (as was recently done for .well-known) so much the better.
--
https://LarryMasinter..net https://going-remote.info
