]> Independent

ted.ietf@gmail.com

GEN IANABIS IANA URI Scheme registration This documents updates the registration procedures for provisional URI schemes to handle issues not present at the time RFC 7595 was written. About This Document Status information for this document may be found at . Discussion of this document takes place on the IANABIS Working Group mailing list (), which is archived at . Subscribe at .

Introduction Among other goals, the URI scheme registry aims to prevent scheme name collisions, as these can result in ambiguity when a URI is presented for processing. To further that goal, the registration procedures for provisional registrations focus on a more limited set of the concerns than those that come into play for a permanent registration. A number recent registrations have highlighted the need for some additional procedural checks for provisional registrations, and this document updates the guidelines in to provide those.

Conventions and Definitions The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.

Guidelines for Provisional URI Scheme Registration 'Provisional' registration can be used for schemes that are not part of any standard but that are intended for use (or observed to be in use) in public or multiparty environments. 'Provisional' registration can also be used as an intermediate step on the way to 'permanent' registration, e.g., before the scheme specification is finalized as a standard. For a 'provisional' registration, the following apply: The scheme name must meet the syntactic requirements of Section 3.8 of RFC 7595. There must not already be an entry with the same scheme name. In the unfortunate case that there are multiple, different uses of the same scheme name, the Designated Expert can approve a request to modify an existing entry to note the separate use. The scheme name must be at least four characters long. The registrant may seek the approval of the Designated Expert for a shorter string in extraordinary cases. The scheme name must not appear in a conflict list supplied by the Designated Expert to IANA. That list will commonly include organizational names, acronyms, and common words likely to generate collisions. A public copy of the list SHALL be made available by IANA for the use of potential registrants. The registrant may seek the approval of the Designated Expert for re-using one of these strings in extraordinary cases. In all cases in which the registration was not rejected by the criteria above, IANA SHALL confirm the suitability of the scheme name with the Designated Expert. The Designated Expert MAY consult the larger community on any registration whose suitability is questionable. Contact information identifying the person supplying the registration must be included. Previously unregistered schemes discovered in use can be registered by third parties (even if not on behalf of those who created the scheme). In this case, both the registering party and the scheme creator SHOULD be identified. If no permanent, citable specification for the scheme definition is included, credible reasons for not providing it SHOULD be given. The scheme definition SHOULD include clear security considerations as set out in Section 3.7 of RFC 7595 or explain why a full security analysis is not available (e.g., in a third-party scheme registration). If the scheme definition does not meet the guidelines laid out in Section 3 of RFC 7595, the differences and reasons SHOULD be noted.

Security Considerations The security considerations for BCP 35 are set out in RFC 7595 and are unchanged by this update.

IANA Considerations After the approval of this document IANA should process relevant requests using these guidelines.

Normative References In many standards track documents several words are used to signify the requirements in the specification. These words are often capitalized. This document defines these words as they should be interpreted in IETF documents. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. RFC 2119 specifies common key words that may be used in protocol specifications. This document aims to reduce the ambiguity by clarifying that only UPPERCASE usage of the key words have the defined special meanings.

Acknowledgments Thanks to Amanda Baber for raising the issues with the current guidelines. Thanks as well to Mark Nottingham, Michael Richardson, Martin Durst, Mark Baker, Graham Klyne, Tim Bray, Bryan Newbold, and S. Moonesamy for their comments on the issues and this document.