RFC 7595, "Guidelines and Registration Procedures for URI Schemes", June 2015Source of RFC: appsawg (art)
Errata ID: 4420
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Graham Klyne
Date Reported: 2015-07-17
Verifier Name: Barry Leiba
Date Verified: 2015-07-17
Section 4 says:
o If no permanent, citable specification for the scheme definition is included, credible reasons for not providing it SHOULD be given. o The scheme definition SHOULD include clear security considerations (Section 3.7) or explain why a full security analysis is not available (e.g., in a third-party scheme registration). o If the scheme definition does not meet the guidelines laid out in Section 3, the differences and reasons SHOULD be noted.
It should say:
Submitters are also encouraged to provide the following information as appropriate: o If no permanent, citable specification for the scheme definition is included, credible reasons for not providing it. o Clear security considerations (cf. Section 3.7), or an explanation of why a security analysis is not available (e.g., in a third- party scheme registration). o A note of and reasons for any deviations from the guidelines for permanent registrations laid out in Section 3.
The original text states a number of normative requirements on provisional registration of URI schemes, but the procedure for these ("first come first served") cannot reasonably be expected to check that they are satisfied. The revision proposed here changes the text to encourage submitters to provide this information, without giving it force of a normative requirement.
For more details, see:
The document editor has agreed the original text does not reflect the intent of the registration procedure: