Hi, Graham.
> 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).
That'd be me, after consulting with Cullen and Robert, who were the
ones who AD-sponsored RFC 6143.
The policy for registering permanent URI schemes is Expert Review, and
the designated expert has quite a bit of room for judgment. RFC 7595
says these:
'Permanent' status is appropriate for, but not limited to, use in
standards.
...and...
The registration procedure is intended to be very lightweight for
noncontentious registrations. For the most part, we expect the good
sense of submitters and reviewers, guided by these procedures, to
achieve an acceptable and useful consensus for the community.
...and...
The role of the Designated Expert in the procedure for 'permanent'
registrations described here is to ensure that the normal open review
process has been properly followed and to raise possible concerns
about wider implications of proposals for the use and deployment
...and that the requester should...
Prepare a scheme registration request using the template
specified in Section 7.4. The scheme registration request can be
contained in an Internet-Draft, submitted alone, or as part of
some other permanently available, stable, protocol specification.
No specification is formally required at all, beyond the registration
template ("submitted alone"), and an Independent Stream RFC certainly
qualifies as a permanently available, stable specification.
I know that Graham knows this; I'm clarifying for others who may not
be as familiar with the registration requirements.
So the fact that we've usually used the IETF Stream for permanent URI
scheme registrations doesn't mean that the Independent Stream is in
any way inappropriate, and Graham is doing the right thing in making
sure that there's been enough open review of this to satisfy him. And
it sounds like he's satisfied:
> 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.
Great! Thanks, as always, Graham, for your excellent review work on
this. I really appreciate that you continue to be willing and able to
serve as a URI Schemes expert.
Barry