One document matched: draft-ietf-iri-4395bis-irireg-00.xml
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd"[
<!ENTITY rfc2119 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2119.xml">
<!ENTITY rfc2141 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2141.xml">
<!ENTITY rfc2434 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2434.xml">
<!ENTITY rfc3978 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.3978.xml">
<!ENTITY rfc3986 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.3986.xml">
<!ENTITY rfc3987 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.3987.xml">
]>
<?rfc toc='yes' ?>
<?rfc symrefs='yes' ?>
<?rfc sortrefs='no'?>
<?rfc compact='yes'?>
<!-- <?rfc-ext parse-xml-in-artwork='yes' ?> -->
<!-- <?xml-stylesheet type='text/xsl' href='rfc2629.xslt' ?> -->
<rfc ipr="trust200902" obsoletes="4395" category="bcp">
<front>
<title abbrev='New URI/IRI Schemes'>Guidelines and Registration Procedures for New URI/IRI Schemes</title>
<author initials='T.' surname='Hansen' fullname='Tony Hansen'>
<organization>AT&T Laboratories</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street>200 Laurel Ave.</street>
<city>Middletown</city>
<region>NJ</region>
<code>07748</code>
<country>USA</country>
</postal>
<email>tony+urireg@maillennium.att.com</email>
</address>
</author>
<author initials='T.' surname='Hardie' fullname='Ted Hardie'>
<organization>Panasonic Wireless Research Lab</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street>10900 Tantau Ave.</street>
<city>Cupertino</city>
<region>CA</region>
<country>USA</country>
</postal>
<phone>+1 408 628 5864</phone>
<email>ted.ietf@gmail.com</email>
</address>
</author>
<author initials='L.' surname='Masinter' fullname='Larry Masinter'>
<organization>Adobe Systems</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street>345 Park Ave.</street>
<city>San Jose</city>
<region>CA</region>
<code>95110</code>
<country>US</country>
</postal>
<phone>+1 408 536 3024</phone>
<email>masinter@adobe.com</email>
<uri>http://larry.masinter.net</uri>
</address>
</author>
<date year='2010' />
<area>Applications</area>
<keyword>URI scheme</keyword>
<keyword>uniform resource identifier</keyword>
<keyword>URI registration</keyword>
<abstract>
<t>
This document updates the guidelines and recommendations for the
definition of Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) schemes,
and extends the registry and guidelines to apply when
the schemes are used with Internationalized Resource
Identifiers (IRIs).
It also updates the process and IANA registry for URI/IRI schemes.
It obsoletes RFC 4395.
</t>
</abstract>
</front>
<middle>
<section title='Introduction'>
<t>
The Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) protocol element and generic
syntax is defined by <xref target='RFC3986' />. Each URI
begins with a scheme name, as defined by Section 3.1 of RFC 3986, that
refers to a specification for identifiers within that scheme.
The URI syntax provides a federated and extensible naming system, where each
scheme's specification may further restrict the syntax and semantics of
identifiers using that scheme. As originally defined, URIs only
allowed a limited repertoire of characters chosen from US-ASCII.
An Interationalized Resource Identifier (IRI) as defined by
<xref target='RFC3987bis' />, extends the URI syntax to allow characters
from a much greater repertoire, to accomodate resource identifiers
from the world's languages. The same schemes used in URIs are
used in IRIs.
The term Resource Identifier (RI) is used as a shorthand for both
URIs and IRIs.
</t>
<t>This document extends the URI scheme registry to
be a registry of URI/IRI schemes (i.e., applicable to both
URIs and IRIs). This document also provides updated guidelines for
the definition of new schemes, for consideration by those who are
defining, registering, or evaluating those definitions, as well as a
process and mechanism for registering URI/IRI schemes within the IANA URI
scheme registry. The registry has two parts: 'provisional' and 'permanent',
with different requirements. Guidelines and requirements for both parts
are given.
</t>
<t>
This document obsoletes <xref target='RFC4395' />,
which in turn obsoleted <xref target='RFC2717' /> and
<xref target='RFC2718' />.
RFCs 2717 and 2718 drew a distinction between 'locators'
(identifiers used for accessing resources available on the
Internet) and
'names' (identifiers used for naming possibly abstract resources,
independent of any mechanism for accessing them).
The intent was to use
the designation "URL" (Uniform Resource Locator) for those identifiers
that were locators and "URN" (Uniform Resource Name) for those
identifiers that were names.
In practice, the line between 'locator'
and 'name' has been difficult to draw: locators can be used as names,
and names can be used as locators.
As a result, recent documents have used the terms "URI"/"IRI" for all
resource identifiers, avoiding the term "URL" and reserving the term
"URN" explicitly for those URIs/IRIs using the "urn" scheme name
(<xref target='RFC2141' />). URN "namespaces"
(<xref target='RFC3406' />) are specific to the "urn"
scheme and not covered explicitly by this specification.
</t>
<t>
RFC 2717 defined a set of registration trees in which URI schemes
could be registered, one of which was called the IETF Tree, to be
managed by IANA. RFC 2717 proposed that additional registration trees
might be approved by the IESG. However, no such registration trees have
been submitted.
This document eliminates RFC 2717's distinction between different
'trees' for URI schemes; instead there is a single namespace for
registered values. Within that namespace, there are values that are
approved as meeting a set of criteria for URI schemes. Other scheme
names may also be registered provisionally, without necessarily meeting
those criteria. The intent of the registry is to:
<t>
</t>
<list style='symbols'>
<t>
provide a central point of
discovery for established URI/IRI scheme names, and easy location of their
defining documents;
</t>
<t>
discourage use of the same scheme name for
different purposes;
</t>
<t>
help those proposing new
scheme names to discern established trends and conventions, and
avoid names that might be confused with existing ones;
</t>
<t>
encourage registration by setting a low barrier for provisional
registrations.
</t>
</list>
</t>
<t>
<xref target='RFC3987' />
introduced a new protocol element, the Internationalized Resource Identifier (IRI),
by defining a mapping between URIs and IRIs.
<xref target='RFC3987bis'/> updates this definition, allowing
an IRI to be interpreted directly without translating into a URI.
There is no separate, independent registry or registration process for IRIs:
the URI Scheme Registry is to be used for both URIs and IRIs.
Previously, those who wish to describe resource identifiers that are useful
as IRIs were encouraged to define the corresponding URI syntax, and
note that the IRI usage follows the rules and transformations
defined in <xref target='RFC3987' />. This document changes
that advice to encourage explicit definition of the scheme and
allowable syntax elements within the larger character repertoire
of IRIs, as defined by <xref target='RFC3987bis'/>.
</t>
</section>
<section title="Conformance Guidelines">
<t>
Within this document, the key words MUST, MAY, SHOULD, REQUIRED,
RECOMMENDED, and so forth are used within the general meanings established
in <xref target='RFC2119' />, within the context that they are requirements
on future registration specifications.
</t>
</section>
<section title='Guidelines for Permanent URI/IRI Scheme Definitions' anchor='guidelines'>
<t>
This section gives considerations for new URI/IRI schemes.
Meeting these guidelines is REQUIRED for permanent scheme registration.
Meeting these guidelines is also RECOMMENDED
for provisional registration, as described in <xref target='provguide' />.
</t>
<section title='Demonstratable, New, Long-Lived Utility'>
<t>
The use and deployment of new URI/IRI schemes in the Internet infrastructure
is costly; some parts of URI/IRI processing may be scheme-dependent,
and deployed software already processes URIs and IRIs of well-known schemes.
Introducing a new scheme may require additional software, not
only for client software and user agents but also in additional
parts of the network infrastructure (gateways,
proxies, caches) <xref target='W3CWebArch' />.
URI/IRI schemes constitute a single, global namespace; it is desirable to avoid
contention over use of short, mnemonic scheme names. For these reasons,
the unbounded registration of new schemes is harmful.
New URI/IRI schemes SHOULD have clear utility to the broad
Internet community, beyond that available with already registered URI/IRI
schemes.
</t>
</section>
<?rfc needLines="10" ?>
<section title='Syntactic Compatibility' anchor='syntaxguide'>
<t>
<xref target='RFC3986' /> defines the generic syntax
for all URI schemes, along with the syntax of common URI components
that are used by many URI schemes to define hierarchical identifiers.
<xref target='RFC3987' /> and <xref target='RFC3987bis'/>
extended this generic syntax
to cover IRIs.
All URI/IRI scheme specifications MUST define their own syntax such that
all strings matching their scheme-specific syntax will also match the
<absolute&nbhy;URI> grammar described in <xref target="RFC3987bis" />.
</t>
<t>
New schemes SHOULD reuse the common components of <xref target="RFC3987bis" />
for the definition of hierarchical naming schemes. However, if there
is a strong reason for a scheme not to use the hierarchical
syntax, then the new scheme definition SHOULD follow the
syntax of previously registered schemes.
</t>
<t>
Schemes that are not intended for use with relative URIs/IRIs SHOULD
avoid use of the forward slash "/" character, which is used for
hierarchical delimiters, and the complete path segments "." and ".."
(dot-segments).
</t>
<t>
Avoid improper use of "//". The use of double slashes in the first
part of a URI/IRI is not an artistic indicator that what follows is a
URI/IRI: Double slashes are used ONLY when the syntax of the
<scheme-specific-part> contains a hierarchical structure.
In URIs and IRIs from such schemes, the use of double
slashes indicates that what follows is the top hierarchical element
for a naming authority. (Section 3.2 of RFC 3986 has more
details.) Schemes that do not contain a conformant hierarchical
structure in their <scheme-specific-part> SHOULD NOT use double
slashes following the "<scheme>:" string.
</t>
<t>
New schemes SHOULD clearly define the role of <xref target='RFC3986' />
reserved characters in URIs/IRIs of the scheme being defined. The syntax
of the new scheme should be clear about which of the "reserved" set
of characters are used as delimiters within
the URIs/IRIs of the new scheme, and when those characters must be escaped,
versus when they may be used without escaping.
</t>
</section>
<section title='Well-Defined' anchor='defguide'>
<t>
While URIs/IRIs may or may not be defined as locators in practice, a
scheme definition itself MUST be clear as to how it is expected to
function. Schemes that are not intended to be used as locators SHOULD
describe how the resource identified can be determined or accessed by
software that obtains a URI/IRI of that scheme.
</t>
<?rfc needLines="10" ?>
<t>
For schemes that function as locators, it is important that the
mechanism of resource location be clearly defined. This might mean
different things depending on the nature of the scheme.
</t>
<t>
In many cases, new schemes are defined as ways to translate
between other namespaces or protocols and the general framework of
URIs. For example, the "ftp" scheme translates into the FTP
protocol, while the "mid" scheme translates into a Message-ID
identifier of an email message. For such schemes, the description of
the mapping must be complete, and in sufficient detail so that the
mapping in both directions is clear: how to map from a URI/IRI into an
identifier or set of protocol actions or name in the target
namespace, and how legal values in the base namespace, or legal
protocol interactions, might be represented in a valid URI or IRI. In
particular, the mapping should describe the mechanisms for encoding
binary or character strings within valid character sequences in a
URI/IRI (See <xref target='charguide' /> for guidelines).
If not all legal values or protocol interactions of the base
standard can be represented using the scheme, the definition
should be clear about which subset are allowed, and why.
</t>
</section>
<section title='Definition of Operations' anchor='opsdefn'>
<t>
As part of the definition of how a URI/IRI identifies a resource, a
scheme definition SHOULD define the applicable set of
operations that may be performed on a resource using the RI as its
identifier. A model for this is HTTP; an HTTP resource can be
operated on by GET, POST, PUT, and a number of other operations
available through the HTTP protocol. The scheme definition should
describe all well-defined operations on the resource identifier, and what
they are supposed to do.
</t>
<t>
Some schemes don't fit into the "information access" paradigm
of URIs/IRIs. For example, "telnet" provides location information for
initiating a bi-directional data stream to a remote host; the only
operation defined is to initiate the connection. In any case, the
operations appropriate for a scheme should be documented.
</t>
<t>
Note: It is perfectly valid to say that "no operation apart from
GET is defined for this RI". It is also valid to say that "there's
only one operation defined for this RI, and it's not very GET-like".
The important point is that what is defined on this scheme is
described.
</t>
</section>
<section title='Context of Use' anchor='contextofuse'>
<t>
In general, URIs/IRIs are used within a broad range of protocols and
applications. Most commonly, URIs/IRIs are used as references to
resources within directories or hypertext documents, as hyperlinks to
other resources. In some cases, a scheme is intended for use
within a different, specific set of protocols or applications. If
so, the scheme definition SHOULD describe the intended use and include
references to documentation that define the applications and/or
protocols cited.
</t>
</section>
<section title='Internationalization and Character Encoding'
anchor='charguide'>
<t>
When describing schemes in which (some of) the elements of the
URI or IRI are actually representations of human-readable text, care should
be taken not to introduce unnecessary variety in the ways in which
characters are encoded into octets and then into characters; see
<xref target='RFC3987bis' />
and Section 2.5 of <xref target='RFC3986'/> for guidelines.
If URIs/IRIs of a scheme contain any text fields,
the scheme definition MUST describe the ways in which characters
are encoded and any compatibility issues with IRIs of the scheme.
</t>
<t>
Specifications for IRIs schemes MUST be described in terms of processing
an IRI as a sequence of Unicode codepoints, without reference to the encoding of those code points as a sequence of bytes, using UTF-8 or UTF-16.
The scheme specification SHOULD be as restrictive as possible regarding what characters
are allowed in the URI/IRI, because some characters can create several different
security considerations (see for example <xref target='RFC4690'/>).
</t>
</section>
<section title='Clear Security Considerations' anchor='secguide'>
<t>
Definitions of schemes MUST be accompanied by a clear
analysis of the security implications for systems that use the
scheme; this follows the practice of Security Consideration sections
within IANA registrations <xref target='RFC2434' />.
</t>
<t>
In particular, Section 7 of RFC 3986 <xref target='RFC3986'/>
describes general security considerations for URIs, while
Section ??? of <xref target='RFC3987bis' /> gives those
for IRIs.
The definition of an individual URI/IRI
scheme should note which of these apply to the specified scheme.
</t>
</section>
<section title='Scheme Name Considerations' anchor='nameguide'>
<t>
Section 3.1 of RFC 3986 defines the syntax of a URI scheme name;
this sytax remains the same for IRIs.
New registered schemes registrations MUST follow this syntax,
which only allows a limited repertoire of characters (taken
from US-ASCII). Although the syntax for the scheme name in
URI/IRIs is case insensitive, the scheme names itself
MUST be registered using lowercase letters.
</t>
<t>
URI/IRI scheme names should be short, but also sufficiently
descriptive and distinguished to avoid problems.
</t>
<t>
Avoid names or other symbols that might cause problems with
rights to use the name in IETF specifications
and Internet protocols. For example, be careful with
trademark and service mark names. (See Section 7.4 of
<xref target='RFC3978' />.)
</t>
<t>
Avoid using names that are either very general purpose or associated
in the community with some other application or protocol. Avoid
scheme names that are overly general or grandiose in scope (e.g.,
that allude to their "universal" or "standard" nature.)
</t>
<t>
Organizations that desire a private name space for URI scheme names
are encouraged to use a prefix based on their domain name, expressed
in reverse order. For example, a URI scheme name of com-example-info
might be registered by the vendor that owns the example.com domain
name.
</t>
</section>
</section>
<section title='Guidelines for Provisional URI/IRI Scheme Registration'
anchor='provguide'>
<t>
While the guidelines in <xref target='guidelines' /> are REQUIRED
for permanent registration, they are RECOMMENDED
for provisional registration. For a provisional registration,
the following are REQUIRED:
<t>
</t>
<list style='symbols'>
<t>
The
scheme name meets the syntactic requirements of
<xref target='nameguide' />.
</t>
<t>
There is not already an entry with the
same scheme name. (In the unfortunate case that there are
multiple, different uses of the same scheme name, the IESG may approve
a request to modify an existing entry to note the separate use.)
</t>
<t>
Contact information identifying the person supplying the
registration is included. Previously unregistered schemes
discovered in use may 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.
</t>
<t>
If no permanent,
citable specification for the scheme definition is included,
credible reasons for not providing it should be given.
</t>
<t>
A valid
Security Considerations section, as required by Section 6 of
<xref target='RFC2434'/>.
</t>
<t>
If the scheme definition does not meet the
guidelines laid out in <xref target='guidelines' />, the differences
and reasons SHOULD be noted.
</t>
</list>
</t>
</section>
<section title='Guidelines for Historical URI/IRI Scheme Registration' anchor='histguide'>
<t>
In some circumstances, it is appropriate to note a URI scheme that was
once in use or registered but for whatever reason is no longer in common use
or the use is not recommended. In this case, it is possible for an individual
to request that the scheme be registered (newly, or as an update to an
existing registration) as 'historical'. Any scheme that is no longer
in common use MAY be designated as historical; the registration should
contain some indication to where the scheme was previously defined or
documented.
</t>
</section>
<?rfc needLines="10" ?>
<section title='URI/IRI Scheme Registration Procedure' anchor='process'>
<section title='General'>
<t>
The URI/IRI registration process is described in the terminology of
<xref target='RFC2434'/>.
The registration process is an optional
mailing list review, followed by "Expert Review".
The registration request should note the desired status.
The Designated Expert will evaluate the request against
the criteria of the requested status.
In the case of a permanent registration
request, the Designated Expert may:
<list style='symbols'>
<t>
Accept the specification of the scheme
for permanent registration.
</t>
<t>
Suggest provisional
registration instead.
</t>
<t>
Request IETF review and IESG approval;
in the meanwhile, suggest provisional registration.
</t>
</list>
</t>
<t>
URI/IRI scheme definitions contained within other IETF documents
(Informational, Experimental, or Standards-Track RFCs) must also
undergo Expert Review; in the case of Standards-Track documents,
permanent registration status approval is required.
</t>
</section>
<section title='Registration Procedures'>
<t>
Someone wishing to register a new URI/IRI scheme SHOULD:
<t>
</t>
<list style='numbers'>
<t>
Check the IANA URI scheme registry to see whether
or not there is already an entry for the desired name. If there is
already an entry under the name, choose a different URI scheme
name, or update the existing scheme definition.
</t>
<t>
Prepare a URI/IRI scheme registration template, as specified
in <xref target='template' />. The scheme registration
template may be contained in an Internet Draft, submitted alone,
or as part of
some other permanently available, stable, protocol specification.
The template may also be submitted
in some other form (as part of another document or as a stand-alone
document), but the contents will be treated as an "IETF Contribution"
under the guidelines of <xref target='RFC3978' />.
</t>
<t>
Send a copy of the template or a pointer to
the containing document (with specific reference to the section with
the template) to the mailing list
<eref target='uri-review@ietf.org'>uri-review@ietf.org</eref>,
requesting review.
In addition, request review on other relevant mailing lists as appropriate.
For example,
general discussion of URI/IRI syntactical issues could be discussed on
uri@w3.org;
schemes for a network protocol could be discussed on a mailing list for that protocol.
Allow a reasonable time for discussion and comments.
Four weeks is reasonable for a permanent registration requests.
</t>
<t>
Respond to review comments and make revisions to the proposed registration
as needed to bring it into line with the guidelines given in this document.
</t>
<t>
Submit the
(possibly updated) registration template (or pointer to document
containing it) to IANA at iana@iana.org, specifying
whether 'permanent' or 'provisional' registration is requested.
</t>
</list>
</t>
<t>
Upon receipt of a URI/IRI scheme registration request, the
following steps MUST be followed:
<t>
</t>
<list style='numbers'>
<t>
IANA checks the submission for completeness; if
sections are missing or citations are not correct, IANA may reject the
registration request.
</t>
<t>
IANA checks the current registry for a entry
with the same name; if such a registry exists, IANA may reject the
registration request.
</t>
<t>
IANA requests Expert Review of the
registration request against the corresponding guidelines (from this document.)
</t>
<t>
The Designated Expert may request additional review
or discussion, as necessary.
</t>
<t>
If
Expert Review recommends registration 'provisional'
or 'permanent' registration, IANA adds the registration to the
appropriate registry.
</t>
<t>
Unless Expert Review has explicitly
rejected the registration request within two weeks, IANA should automatically
add the registration in the 'provisional' registry.
</t>
</list>
</t>
<t>
Either based on an explicit request or independently initiated, the
Designated Expert or IESG may request the upgrade of a 'provisional'
registration to a 'permanent' one. In such cases, IANA should move
the corresponding entry from the provisional registry.
</t>
</section>
<section title='Change Control'>
<t>
Registrations may be updated in each registry by the same mechanism
as required for an initial registration. In cases where the original
definition of the scheme is contained in an IESG-approved document,
update of the specification also requires IESG approval.
</t>
<t>
Provisional registrations may be updated by the original registrant
or anyone designated by the original registrant. In addition, the IESG may reassign
responsibility for a provisional registration scheme, or may request
specific changes to a scheme registration.
This will enable changes to be made to
schemes where the original registrant is out of contact, or
unwilling or unable to make changes.
</t>
<t>
Transition from 'provisional' to 'permanent' status may be requested
and approved in the same manner as a new 'permanent' registration.
Transition from 'permanent' to 'historical' status requires IESG approval.
Transition from 'provisional' to 'historical' may be requested by anyone
authorized to update the provisional registration.
</t>
</section>
<section title='URI/IRI Scheme Registration Template' anchor='template'>
<t>
This template describes the fields that must be supplied in a URI/IRI
scheme registration request:
<t>
</t>
<list style='hanging' hangIndent='2'>
<t hangText='Resource Identifier (RI) Scheme name.'> <vspace />
See <xref target='nameguide' /> for guidelines.
</t>
<t hangText='Status.'> <vspace /> This
reflects the status requested, and should be one of 'permanent',
'provisional', or 'historical'.
</t>
<t hangText='Scheme syntax.'> <vspace />
See <xref target='syntaxguide' /> for guidelines.
</t>
<t hangText='Scheme semantics.'> <vspace />
See <xref target='defguide' /> and <xref target='opsdefn' /> for guidelines.
</t>
<t hangText='Encoding considerations.'>
<vspace /> See <xref target='defguide' /> and <xref target='charguide' /> for guidelines.
</t>
<t hangText='Applications/protocols that use this scheme name.'> <vspace />
See <xref target='contextofuse' />.
</t>
<t hangText='Interoperability considerations.'> <vspace />
If the person or group registering the scheme is aware of any
details regarding the scheme that might impact interoperability,
identify them here. For example: proprietary or uncommon
encoding methods; inability to support multibyte character sets;
incompatibility with types or versions of any underlying protocol.
</t>
<t hangText='Security considerations.'><vspace />
See <xref target='secguide' /> for guidelines.
</t>
<t hangText='Contact.'> <vspace />
Person
(including contact information) to contact for further information.
</t>
<t hangText='Author/Change controller.'> <vspace /> Person (including contact information)
authorized to change this, if a provisional registration.
</t>
<t hangText='References.'> <vspace /> Include full citations for all referenced
documents. Registration templates for provisional registration may
be included in an Internet Draft; when the documents expire or are approved for
publication as an RFC, the registration will be updated.
</t>
</list>
</t>
</section>
</section>
<section title='The "example" Scheme'>
<t>
There is a need for a URI/IRI Scheme name that can be used for examples in documentation
without fear of conflicts with current or future actual schemes.
The URI/IRI Scheme "example" is hereby registered as a Permanent URI/IRI Scheme for that purpose.
<list style='hanging' hangIndent='2'>
<t hangText='Scheme name'>
example
</t>
<t hangText='Status'>
permanent
</t>
<t hangText='Scheme syntax'>
The entire range of allowable syntax for URI/IRI schemes specified in <xref target='RFC3987bis'/>
is allowed for "example" URI/IRIs.
</t>
<t hangText='Scheme semantics'>
URI/IRIs in the "example" scheme should be used for documentation purposes only.
The use of "example" URIs/IRIs must not be used as locators, identify any resources, or
specify any particular set of operations.
</t>
<t hangText='Encoding considerations'>
See Section 2.5 of <xref target="RFC3986"/> for guidelines.
</t>
<t hangText='Applications/protocols that use this URI scheme name'>
The "example" URI should be used for documentation purposes only.
It MUST not be used for any protocol.
</t>
<t hangText='Interoperability considerations'>
None.
</t>
<t hangText='Security considerations'>
None.
</t>
<t hangText='Contact'>
N/A
</t>
<t hangText='Author/Change controller'>
IETF
</t>
<t hangText='References'>
This RFC XXXX.
<vspace/>
RFC Editor Note: Replace XXXX with this RFC's reference.
</t>
</list>
</t>
</section>
<section title='IANA Considerations'>
<t>
Previously, the former "URL Scheme" registry was replaced by the
Uniform Resource Identifier scheme registry.
The process
was based on <xref target='RFC2434' /> "Expert Review" with an initial
(optional) mailing list review.</t><t>
The updated template has an additional field for the status
of the scheme, and the procedures for entering new name
schemes have been augmented.
<xref target='process' /> establishes
the process for new URI/IRI scheme registration.
</t>
<t>
The example URI scheme "example" is hereby registered.
(See the template above for registration.)
</t>
</section>
<section title='Security Considerations'>
<t>
All registered values are expected to contain accurate security consideration
sections; 'permanent' registered scheme names are expected to contain
complete definitions.
</t>
<t>
Information concerning possible security vulnerabilities of a
protocol may change over time. Consequently, claims as to the security
properties of a registered URI/IRI scheme may change as well. As new
vulnerabilities are discovered, information about such vulnerabilities
may need to be attached to existing documentation, so that users are
not misled as to the true security properties of a registered URI
scheme.
</t>
</section>
<section title='Acknowledgements'>
<t>
Many thanks to Patrick Faltstrom for his comments on this version.
</t>
<t>
Many thanks to Paul Hoffmann, Ira McDonald, Roy Fielding, Stu Weibel,
Tony Hammond, Charles Lindsey, Mark Baker,
and other members of the uri@w3.org
mailing list for their comments on earlier versions.
</t>
<t>
Parts of this document are based on <xref target='RFC2717' />,
<xref target='RFC2718' /> and <xref target='RFC3864' />. Some of the ideas
about use of URIs were taken from the "Architecture of the World Wide
Web" <xref target='W3CWebArch'/>.
</t>
</section>
</middle>
<?rfc needLines="20" ?>
<back>
<section title="Changes Since RFC 4395">
<t>
<list style='numbers'>
<t> Significant edits to be clear that a "URI scheme" and an "IRI scheme"
are the same thing.</t>
<t>
Added the "example:" URL Scheme.
</t>
<t>
Allow for IRI-specific scheme registration.
</t>
<t>
Clarify that the URI scheme registry is also the IRI scheme registry.
</t>
</list>
</t>
</section>
<references title='Normative References'>
&rfc2119;
&rfc2141;
&rfc2434;
&rfc3978;
&rfc3986;
&rfc3987;
<reference anchor="RFC3987bis"
target="http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-iri-3987bis">
<front>
<title>Internationalized Resource Identifiers (IRIs)</title>
<author initials="M." surname="Duerst"/>
<author initials="L." surname="Masinter" fullname="Larry Masinter"/>
<author initials="M." surname="Suignard"/>
<date year="2010" month="September" day="31" />
</front>
</reference>
</references>
<references title='Informative References'>
<?rfc include='reference.RFC.2717' ?>
<?rfc include='reference.RFC.2718' ?>
<?rfc include='reference.RFC.3406' ?>
<?rfc include='reference.RFC.3864' ?>
<?rfc include='reference.RFC.4395' ?>
<?rfc include='reference.RFC.4690' ?>
<reference anchor='W3CWebArch' target='http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/'>
<front>
<title>Architecture of the World Wide Web, Volume One</title>
<author>
<organization abbrev="W3C TAG">W3C Technical Architecture Group</organization>
</author>
<date year="2004" month="December"/>
</front>
</reference>
</references>
</back>
</rfc>
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-24 10:34:42 |