> On Sep 3, 2020, at 5:14 AM, Timothy Mcsweeney <tim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Brian, > > >Re-assuming my hat as a Gen-ART reviewer for this draft, I think that this > >change would be a mistake, as it no longer explicitly informs the reader > >what has been changed in RFC 3405. > > >If we really want to be precise, I suggest: > > >2. Updated Requirements > > >This document removes the normative requirement from section 3.1.1 > >of RFC 3405 for registrations in URI.ARPA to be from the IETF URI Tree. > > >All registrations in URI.ARPA MUST now be for schemes which are > >permanent registrations, as they are described in BCP 35. > > > > Sorry, I want to make my last comment more clear. > In the interest of brevity, we probably don't really need that second sentence. And its removal might help to open things up a bit. So section two would now look like: > > 2. Updated Requirements > > This document removes the normative requirement from section 3.1.1 > of RFC 3405 for registrations in URI.ARPA to be from the IETF URI Tree. I disagree with that change. The sentence you propose to remove is one of the main points of the document. Dropping that requirement would, for all material purposes, give us an IANA registration policy of FCFS. I don’t think it’s appropriate to add schemes to the URI.ARPA zone without substantive review. Ben. -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
