In my role as URI scheme registration designated reviewer, I'm reviewing a
request for permanent registration of the 'vnc:' URI scheme, per
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-warden-appsawg-vnc-scheme-07#appendix-A
The scheme registration document appears to be thorough, and it has received
some review on the uri-review@xxxxxxxx mailing list with substantially positive
responses, and appears (from a brief Google search) to be quite widely
implemented.
But the registration document is being submitted though the RFC ISE stream,
which does not receive the same level of IETF review as IETF stream publication,
and in the past registrations from ISE documents have been restricted to
"provisional" status. I understand publication via ISE stream was at the
suggestion of an IETF application area director (I don't know who).
Taking all the above into account, I am minded to approve permanent registration
in this case (which has the effect of conferring something approaching
"standard" status).
Are there any concerns anyone would raise about my proposed response?
If I hear no objections over the next week or so, I propose to recommend
permanent registration as requested.
#g
--