Couldn't IANA just implement the "search format" as http://www.iana.org/assignments/Registry-Name and cut out the middle man? Regarding the "20 year" argument, it seems to imply that one of the following will happen in that time scale: 1) HTTP will be replaced by another protocol in a non-backwards-compatible fashion, and support in software is dropped (i.e., obviating all existing HTTP URLs), or 2) URIs themselves will be replaced in a non-backwards-compatible way, and URI-handling software disappears (obviating all URIs, period), or 3) The domain name system crashes and burns irrevocably, or 4) IANA loses legal control of iana.org, or 5) IANA lacks the organisational ability to guarantee stable identifiers for its products, or 6) No Web serving software is available that gives IANA the ability to control their own URI path components, and it is illegal for them to write it themselves. If #1 or #2 happens (unlikely), we will have enough warning to revise the RFCs as appropriate, or provide a mapping to the new way of doing things. Not fun, but a reasonably calculated risk, given the shelf life of most IETF products. If #3 - #6 happens (likelihood is reader-deterimined), we've got far worse problems than some RFCs whose registries can't be easily found -- A STATE THAT I WOULD MENTION WE ARE ALREADY IN TODAY. *shakes head in disbelief* -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/ _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf