URI.ARPA Rules: Updated Registration Rules for URI.ARPA
A one-paragraph fix that stops URI.ARPA registrations from requiring a URI tree that no longer exists.
Hardie, T., "Updated Registration Rules for URI.ARPA", BCP 65, RFC 8958, DOI 10.17487/RFC8958, December 2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8958>.
@misc{rfc8958,
series = {Request for Comments},
number = 8958,
howpublished = {RFC 8958},
publisher = {RFC Editor},
doi = {10.17487/RFC8958},
url = {https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8958},
author = {T. Hardie},
title = {{Updated Registration Rules for URI.ARPA}},
pagetotal = 3,
year = 2020,
month = dec,
} RFC text
Contents
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) T. Hardie
Request for Comments: 8958 December 2020
BCP: 65
Updates: 3405
Category: Best Current Practice
ISSN: 2070-1721
Updated Registration Rules for URI.ARPA
Abstract
This document updates RFC 3405 by removing references to the IETF
tree from the procedures for requesting that a URI scheme be inserted
into the URI.ARPA zone.
Status of This Memo
This memo documents an Internet Best Current Practice.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
BCPs is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8958.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
1.1. Requirements Language
2. Updated Requirements
3. IANA Considerations
4. Security Considerations
5. References
5.1. Normative References
5.2. Informative References
Author's Address
1. Introduction
Part Five of the Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) [RFC3405]
describes the registration procedures for assignments in URI.ARPA.
The document requires that registrations be in the "IETF tree" of URI
registrations. The use of URI scheme name trees was defined in RFC
2717 [RFC2717] but discontinued by RFC 4395 [RFC4395] and its
successors. Since the use of trees was discontinued, there is no way
in the current process set out in BCP 35 [RFC7595] to meet the
requirement to register within that tree.
1.1. Requirements Language
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 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
2. Updated Requirements
This document removes the normative requirement from RFC 3405
[RFC3405] for registrations in URI.ARPA to be from the IETF URI tree.
All registrations in URI.ARPA MUST now be for schemes that are
permanent registrations, as described in BCP 35.
3. IANA Considerations
This entire document is updated instructions to IANA.
4. Security Considerations
This update does not change the security considerations in RFC 3405
[RFC3405].
5. References
5.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC3405] Mealling, M., "Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS)
Part Five: URI.ARPA Assignment Procedures", BCP 65,
RFC 3405, DOI 10.17487/RFC3405, October 2002,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3405>.
[RFC7595] Thaler, D., Ed., Hansen, T., and T. Hardie, "Guidelines
and Registration Procedures for URI Schemes", BCP 35,
RFC 7595, DOI 10.17487/RFC7595, June 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7595>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
5.2. Informative References
[RFC2717] Petke, R. and I. King, "Registration Procedures for URL
Scheme Names", RFC 2717, DOI 10.17487/RFC2717, November
1999, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2717>.
[RFC4395] Hansen, T., Hardie, T., and L. Masinter, "Guidelines and
Registration Procedures for New URI Schemes", RFC 4395,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4395, February 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4395>.
Author's Address
Ted Hardie
Email: ted.ietf@gmail.com
AI ELI5
On this page
§1The Problem With the Old Rule
Part Five of the Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS), RFC 3405, describes how assignments are made in URI.ARPA. It requires that registrations be in the IETF tree of URI registrations.
Trees of URI scheme names were defined in RFC 2717 but discontinued by RFC 4395 and its successors. The current process in BCP 35 (RFC 7595) therefore has no way to register within that tree, so the requirement could not be satisfied.
An old rule asked for something that no longer exists, like asking for a library card from a library that closed. Nobody could follow it.
§2The Updated Requirement
This document removes the normative requirement from RFC 3405 for registrations in URI.ARPA to be from the IETF URI tree. In its place, all registrations in URI.ARPA MUST now be for schemes that are permanent registrations, as described in BCP 35.
That is the whole change. The document uses the RFC 2119 and RFC 8174 key words only when they appear in capitals.
The new rule says: only names that are fully and permanently signed up can be added. That is something people can actually do.
§3Instructions to IANA
The RFC states that the entire document is updated instructions to IANA. There is no separate list of actions: the changed requirement in the previous section is the instruction.
The people who keep the list get the new rule and use it from now on.
§4Security Considerations
This update does not change the security considerations in RFC 3405. Those still apply as written.
Nothing about safety changes. The old safety notes still stand.