Hi. In doing a bit of research for the recent discussion of DOIs on the IETF list, I discovered (again) that: There is an "info" URI Scheme, listed in the registry at http://www.iana.org/assignments/uri-schemes/uri-schemes.xhtml#uri-schemes-1. "info" is defined in RFC 4452, which is referenced, as having a separate registry of public namespaces. IANA does not maintain that registry (unlike the registries for assorted parameters and tokens for some other URI types. There is no hint on the IANA pages that such a subsidiary registry exists or where to find it. It appears to me that there should. That is probably a policy matter for IANA and the community but I urge that it be considered. The question is particularly important at this point for at least two and possibly three reasons: (1) The registry to which RFC 4452 points, http://info-uri.info/, identifies a five-year-old page that states that the registry is closed to new registrations and contains language that can be construed as generally deprecating the "info" scheme. (2) The registry itself (link on the above page), contains registration entries for "info:ark", "info:doi", "info:hdl", and a rather large number of other identifier systems, several of which might be appropriate for identification of IETF documents and other digital resources. (3) At least part of the explanation given in RFC 4452 about why an "info" scheme is needed rather than using "urn" scheme namespace registrations will soon be obsolete given changes that are in progress in the URNBIS WG. If NISO (the organization designated by RFC 4452 as responsible for the registry) and OCLC (the organization actually managing the registry) are convinced that the "info:" scheme has outlived its usefulness (as the link in (1) implies), than either we should be working with them to deprecate (or at least issue an Applicability Statement about) RFC 4452 and the scheme and/or should be considering whether it would be useful to convert some or all of the identifiers into URN namespaces. john An aside: As far as I can tell, the "info" scheme and the namespaces it supports are precisely an example of comment in RFC 3896 about Uniform Resource Names that are not part of the "urn:" scheme. That comment has been the source of a lot of trouble and confusion; it is not clear to me whether this concrete example makes things better or worse.