Gaurav Vaish wrote: > I'm not sure what you mean by "Informational RFC". I'm also not sure, but you got me... :-) RfC 2229 is "only" an informational RfC, and I don't know who could update or replace it without the consent of the original authors. The copyright statement apparently allows to create an Internet standard derived from RfC 2229, but IANAL and still trying to figure out how the "normal" IETF standards process works. > can I directly put up an I-D? Yes, you can publish your ideas as I-D. One way to create an I-D is <http://xml.resource.org/>, if you like XML for this purpose. Otherwise you could still use its "A. Mouse" demo to get a valid template. [RfC 3986] > Hmm... that's pretty new one. It's a standard, you can't ignore it. The old dict: scheme was registered because it was a "grandfathered" case, IANA had the dict port in their port registry, but not the dict URL in their URL registry, now that's fixed. A lot of drafts try to salvage old 1738 schemes like gopher:, file:, ftp:, news:, etc., because they want to get rid of the old 1738 a.s.a.p. So far wais: and prospero: are declared to be "historic". The worst case is RfC 2368 mailto:, see also http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-duerst-mailto-bis-00 for an idea how to attack this problem. For details with the other schemes see the W3C URI list (despite its name it's more an IETF list). > dict://userinfo@host:port/m:word:database:stratey Not worse than ftp:, news:, or nntp: for the "authority" part. [charsets] > not sure if I'm making some sense here. Don't mention UTF-7, you get it if you want all MIME compatible charsets. there's no reason to mention it explicitly. <gd&r> Bye, Frank _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf