WDIFF

draft-ietf-urlreg-procedures-02.txt --> draft-ietf-urlreg-procedures-03.txt

INTERNET-DRAFT R. Petke
<draft-ietf-urlreg-procedures-02.txt>
<draft-ietf-urlreg-procedures-03.txt> WorldCom Advanced Networks
July 17,
August 7, 1998

Registration Procedures for URL Scheme Names

Status of this Memo

This document is an Internet-Draft. Internet-Drafts are working
documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas,
and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts.

Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents
at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as
reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

To view the entire list of current Internet-Drafts, please check
the "1id-abstracts.txt" listing contained in the Internet-Drafts
Shadow Directories on ftp.is.co.za (Africa), ftp.nordu.net
(Northern Europe), ftp.nis.garr.it (Southern Europe), munnari.oz.au
(Pacific Rim), ftp.ietf.org (US East Coast), or ftp.isi.edu
(US West Coast).

Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

This Internet Draft expires January 15, February 7, 1999.

Abstract

This document defines the process by which new URL schemes are
registered.

1.0 Introduction

A Uniform Resource Locator (URL) is a compact string representation
of the location for a resource that is available via the Internet.
RFC [URI-SYNTAX] [1] defines the general syntax and semantics of
URIs, and, by inclusion, URLs. URLs are designated by including a
"scheme"
"<scheme>:" and then a "scheme-specific part". "<scheme-specific-part>". Many URL schemes
are already defined, however, new schemes may need to be defined in
the future in order to accommodate new Internet protocols and/or
procedures.

A registration process is needed to ensure that the names of all
such new schemes are guaranteed not to collide. Further, the
registration process ensures that URL schemes intended for wide
spread, public use are developed in an orderly, well-specified, and
public manner.

This document defines registration procedures which use the Internet
Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) as a central registry for such URL
scheme names and the IETF RFC mechanism for scheme review, where
appropriate.

2.0 URL Scheme Name Registration

Registration of a new URL scheme name starts with the construction
of a registration proposal. Registration may occur in several
different registration trees, which have different requirements as
discussed below. In general, the new registration proposal is
circulated and reviewed in a fashion appropriate to the tree
involved. The URL scheme name is then registered if the proposal is
acceptable. The following sections describe the requirements and
procedures used for each of the different registration trees.

2.1. Registration Trees and URL Schemes

In order to increase the efficiency and flexibility of the URL
scheme name registration process, three several different formats of URL scheme names
may be registered. registration
"trees" have been created. The registration requirements and
specific registration procedures for each format
differ tree differ, allowing the
overall registration procedure to accommodate the different natural
requirements for URL schemes. For example, a scheme that will be
recommended for wide support and implementation by the Internet
Community requires a more complete review review, prior to registration,
than a scheme that is intended to be used with for resources associated with
proprietary software. The following subsections define

Each of the URL scheme name registration "trees" and trees also imparts a
specific syntax to the associated scheme name being registered.

Registration of a new URL scheme name formats available at this time. may occur in any ONE of the
established registration trees.

The first step in registering a new URL scheme name is to determine
which registration tree the scheme should be registered in.
Determination of the proper registration tree is based on the
intended use for the new scheme, the desired syntax for the scheme
name, and the ability to meet the registration requirements for the
desired tree.

Note that some URL schemes defined prior to this document do not
conform to the naming conventions described below. See Appendix A
for a discussion of those schemes.

2.1.1.

The following subsections define the registration trees available at
this time, the purpose of each tree, the requirements for
registration in each tree, and the associated URL scheme name
formats that are applied to names registered in each tree.

2.1 General Requirements

All new URL scheme NAMES, regardless of registration tree, MUST
conform to the syntax specified in RFC [URI-SYNTAX] for scheme
names.

2.2 The IETF Tree

2.2.1 Purpose

The IETF tree is intended for URL schemes of general interest to the
Internet Community. Registration in the IETF The tree requires exists for URL schemes that require a
substantive review and approval process; the vendor and personal
trees exist for those that do not. It is expected that
applicability statements for particular applications will be
published from time to time that recommend implementation of, and
support for, URL schemes that have proven particularly useful in
those contexts.

2.2.2 Registration Requirements

Registration in the IETF tree requires approval by the IESG and
publication of the URL scheme syntax and semantics as some form of
RFC, usually a standards track RFC.

All new URL schemes registered in the IETF tree, MUST conform to the
generic syntax for URLs as specified in RFC [URI-SYNTAX].

An analysis of the security issues inherent in the new URL scheme names is
REQUIRED. (This is in accordance with the basic requirements for
all IETF protocols.) There is absolutely no requirement that all
URL schemes registered in the IETF tree are normally denoted be secure or completely free
from risks. Nevertheless, all known security risks must be
identified.

The security considerations section of all registrations is subject
to continuing evaluation and modification, and in particular may be
extended by names that
are not explicitly faceted, i.e., do not contain period (".")
characters. use of the "comments on URL scheme names" mechanism
described in section 4.0.

2.2.3 Ownership

The "owner" of a URL scheme name registration in the IETF tree is
assumed to be the IETF itself. Modification or alteration of the
specification requires the same level of processing (e.g. standards
track) as required for the initial registration.

2.1.2.

2.2.4 Syntax of URL Scheme Names

URL scheme names in the IETF tree are normally denoted by names that
are not explicitly faceted, i.e., do not contain period (".")
characters. For example, "http", "ftp", "mailto", etc.

2.3 The Vendor Tree

2.3.1 Purpose

The vendor tree is used for URL schemes associated with commercially
available products. "Vendor" or "producer" are construed as
equivalent and very broadly in this context.

A registration may be placed in the vendor tree by anyone who needs
to identify a scheme for (1) specifying the location of a resource
available via the Internet (2) which may be accessed using a
protocol (or mechanism) for which there is not currently a URL
scheme registered in the IETF tree.

The registration formally
belongs to the vendor or organization registering the of a URL scheme name.
Changes to the specification will be made at their request, as
discussed in subsequent sections.

Registrations name in the vendor tree will be distinguished does not
imply endorsement, approval, or recommendation by the
leading facet "vnd.". That must be followed by an IANA-approved
designation of the producer's name, which is then followed by a URL
scheme name or product designation (e.g. vnd.bigcompany.telepathic). IANA will assign unique designations for producer names,
("bigcompany" in the example above). Accordingly, once a producer
has successfully registered a scheme name, (e.g.
"vnd.bigcompany.telepathic"), only registrations for new scheme
names or IETF or
even certification that originate from "bigcompany" will begin with
"vnd.bigcompany.".

While public exposure and review of URL scheme names to be
registered in the vendor tree specification is not required, using adequate. To become
Internet Standards, protocol, data objects, or whatever must go
through the ietf-types
list for review is strongly encouraged to improve IETF standards process and the quality of
those specifications. Registrations registration in the IETF
tree.

2.3.2 Registration Requirements

RFC publication of vendor tree may be
submitted directly to the IANA.

2.1.3. Personal or Vanity Tree

Registrations for URL schemes created experimentally or as part of
products that are is encouraged but not distributed commercially
required. Material may be registered in
the personal or vanity tree. The registrations are distinguished published as an Informational RFC by
sending it to the leading facet "prs.".

The owner of "personal" registrations and associated specifications
is the person or entity making RFC Editor (please follow the registration, or one instructions to whom
responsibility has been transferred as described below. RFC
authors, RFC-2223 [3]).

While public exposure and review of URL scheme names to be
registered in the personal vendor tree is not required, using the
ietf-types
ietf-url-schemes list for review is strongly encouraged to improve
the quality of those specifications. Registrations

URL schemes registered in the personal vendor tree
may be submitted directly are encouraged to the IANA.

2.1.4. Additional Registration Trees

From time conform
to time and as the generic URL syntax but are not required by the community, the IANA may,
with the advice and consent of the IESG, create new top-level
registration trees. It is explicitly assumed that these trees may
be created for external registration and management by well-known
permanent bodies, such as scientific societies, for URL schemes
specific to the sciences they cover. In general, the quality of
review of specifications for one of these additional registration
trees is expected to be equivalent to that which IETF would give to
registrations in its own tree. Establishment of these new trees
will be announced through RFC publication approved by the IESG.

2.2. Registration Requirements

URL scheme name registration proposals are all expected to conform
to various requirements laid out in the following sections. Note
that requirement specifics sometimes vary depending on the
registration tree, again as detailed in the following sections.

2.2.1. Scheme Names

All new URL scheme names, regardless of registration tree, MUST
conform to the syntax specified for scheme names in RFC [URI-SYNTAX].

2.2.2. URL Syntax

All new URL schemes registered in the IETF tree, MUST conform to the
generic syntax for URLs as specified in RFC [URI-SYNTAX]. URL
schemes registered in the vendor and personal trees are encouraged
to conform to the generic syntax but are not required to do so in
order to be registered.

All new URL schemes SHOULD follow to do so in order to
be registered.

All new URL schemes SHOULD follow the Guidelines for URL Schemes,
set forth in RFC [URL-GUIDELINES] [2].

2.2.3. Security Requirements

While not required, an analysis of the security issues inherent in
the new URL scheme is
required for all registrations in the IETF tree. (This is in
accordance with the basic requirements for all IETF protocols.) A
similar encouraged. Regardless of what security
analysis for schemes registered in the vendor is or personal
trees is encouraged but not required. However, regardless of what
security analysis has or has not been done, all descriptions performed, all descriptions of security issues
must be as accurate as possible regardless of
registration tree. possible. In particular, a statement that
there are "no security issues associated with this scheme" must not
be confused with "the security issues associates with this scheme
have not been assessed".

There is absolutely no requirement that URL schemes registered in
any
the vendor tree be secure or completely free from risks.
Nevertheless, all known security risks must SHOULD be identified in the registration of a URL
scheme name, again regardless of registration tree.
registration.

The security considerations section of all registrations is subject
to continuing evaluation and modification, and in particular may be
extended by use of the "comments on URL scheme name" mechanism
described in section 4.0.

2.3.3 Ownership of Registration

The registration formally belongs to the vendor or organization
registering the scheme name. Changes to the specification will be
made at their request, as discussed in subsequent sections.

2.2.4. Publication Requirements

Proposals for

2.3.4 Syntax of URL schemes registered Scheme Names

Registrations in the IETF vendor tree will be distinguished by the
leading facet "vnd.". That must be
published as RFCs. RFC publication followed by an IANA-approved
designation of vendor and personal URL
schemes the producer's name, which is encouraged but not required. In all cases then followed by a URL
scheme name or product designation (e.g. vnd.bigcompany.telepathic).

IANA will
retain copies of all URL assign unique designations for producer names,
("bigcompany" in the example above). Accordingly, once a producer
has successfully registered a scheme proposals and "publish" them name,
(e.g. "vnd.bigcompany.telepathic"), only registrations for new
scheme names that originate from "bigcompany" will begin with
"vnd.bigcompany.".

2.4 The Personal or Private Tree

2.4.1 Purpose

Registrations for URL schemes created experimentally or as part of
products that are not distributed commercially may be registered in
the URL personal tree. Unlike the IETF and vendor trees which guarantee
the uniqueness of registered scheme names registration tree itself.

Other than names, registrations in the IETF tree,
personal tree are NOT guaranteed to be unique. Multiple sites may
register the same scheme name but use it in different (and
incompatible) ways.

The registration of a URL scheme name in the personal tree does not
imply endorsement, approval, or recommendation by IANA or IETF or
even certification that the specification is adequate. To become
Internet Standards, protocol, data objects, or whatever must go
through the IETF standards process. This is too difficult and
too lengthy a process for and the convenient registration of URL scheme
names.

The in the IETF tree exists for
tree.

2.4.2 Registration Requirements

RFC publication of personal URL schemes that do require a substantive
review and approval process with is encouraged but not
required. Materials may be published as an Informational RFC by
sending it to the vendor RFC Editor (please follow the instructions to RFC
authors, RFC-2223 [3]).

While public exposure and review of URL scheme names to be
registered in the personal trees exist tree is not required, using the
ietf-url-schemes list for review is strongly encouraged to improve
the quality of those that specifications.

URL schemes registered in the personal tree are encouraged to
conform to the generic URL syntax but are not required to do not. It so in
order to be registered.

All new URL schemes SHOULD follow the Guidelines for URL Schemes,
set forth in RFC [URL-GUIDELINES] [2].

While not required, an analysis of the security issues inherent in
the new URL scheme is expected encouraged. Regardless of what security
analysis is or is not performed, all descriptions of security issues
must be as accurate as possible. In particular, a statement that applicability statements
for particular applications will
there are "no security issues associated with this scheme" must not
be published confused with "the security issues associates with this scheme
have not been assessed".

There is absolutely no requirement that URL schemes registered in
the personal tree be secure or completely free from time risks.
Nevertheless, all known security risks SHOULD be identified in the
registration.

The security considerations section of all registrations is subject
to time that
recommend implementation of, continuing evaluation and support for, modification, and in particular may be
extended by use of the "comments on URL schemes that have
proven particularly useful scheme name" mechanism
described in those contexts.

As discussed above, section 4.0.

2.4.3 Ownership of Registration

The owner of "personal" registrations and associated specifications
is the person or entity making the registration, or one to whom
responsibility has been transferred as described below.

2.4.4 Syntax of URL Scheme Names

Registrations in the personal tree are distinguished by the leading
facet "prs.". For example, "prs.fiberreflection".

2.5 Additional Registration Trees

From time to time and as required by the community, the IANA may,
with the advice and consent of the IESG, create new top-level
registration trees. It is explicitly assumed that these trees may
be created for external registration and management by well-known
permanent bodies, such as scientific societies, for URL schemes
specific to the sciences they cover. In general, the quality of
review of specifications for one of these additional registration
trees is expected to be equivalent to that which IETF would give to
registrations in its own tree. Establishment of these new trees
will be announced through RFC publication approved by the IESG.

3.0 Registration Procedures

The following sections detail the procedures to follow to register a
new URL scheme name in a specific registration tree. With the
exception of registration in the IETF tree, these procedures are not
a formal standards process, but rather an administrative procedure
intended to allow community comment and sanity checking without
excessive time delay.

3.1 The IETF Tree

Complete the registration template (section 7.0 of this document)
and submit it to the IESG for review. Generally the details of
the proposed new URL scheme should already be documented in an
Internet-Draft and the registration template should reference this
draft.

The IESG will review the proposed new scheme and either refer the
scheme to a working group (existing or new) or directly present the
registration and associated documentation to the IESG for a last
call. In the former case, the working group is responsible for
re-submitting it to the IESG for approval at such time as it has
received adequate review and deliberation.

After the IESG has approved the registration, it will forward the
registration paperwork and documentation to IANA for publication on
the ietf-url-schemes list and official registration in the IETF
tree.

Authors proposing new URL schemes for the IETF tree are encouraged
to present the proposed schemes to the IETF as a whole, via the
Internet-Drafts mechanism, well in advance of submission to the
IESG.

3.2 The Vendor Tree

Complete the registration template (section 7.0 of this document) as
completely as possible.

While not required, it is recommended and encouraged that vendors
submit a copy of the completed registration template (which includes
references to any additional documentation), to the ietf-url-schemes
list for peer review and comment. The quality of URL schemes can
usually be improved through such a process. The amount of feedback
received regarding the proposed scheme should serve as an indication
of how long to keep the proposal in peer review before proceeding
with the registration.

Forward the completed registration template to IANA (iana@iana.org).

IANA will review the registration template to ensure that it meets
the requirements necessary for registration. If it does not meet
the necessary requirements, the application will be rejected and
returned to the submitter and the registration process will be
terminated. Authors may choose to amend the information presented
in the registration template and re-submit it to IANA who will treat
the re-submission as a new registration request.

IANA will assign the unique designation for the producer's name at
this time if one has not already been assigned to the producer
making the registration request.

Regardless of whether or not the accepted registration of a top-level type requires
standards-track processing and, hence, RFC publication.

2.3. Registration Procedure

The following procedure template has
previously been implemented by posted to the ietf-url-schemes list for review, IANA
will post the template to the list along with an indication that the
template has been officially received by IANA for review registration.
IANA will then wait for two (2) weeks for comments on and approval community
review of new URL scheme names. This the registration request.

The intent of the public posting is not a formal
standards process, but rather an administrative procedure intended to allow community comment solicit comments and sanity checking without excessive
time delay. For registration in the IETF tree, feedback
on the normal IETF
processes should be followed, treating posting choice of an internet-draft scheme name, the syntax and announcement on semantics of the ietf-types list (as described
scheme, and a review of any interoperability or security
considerations (if such information is disclosed in the next
subsection) application
or associated documentation).

IANA will forward all comments received during this review period to
the person designated as the contact person in the registration
template.

The submitter may submit a first step. For registrations revised registration, or withdraw the
registration completely, at any time.

After the two week review period has expired, IANA shall register
the URL scheme name in the vendor or tree.

URL scheme names proposed to this mailing list are not formally
registered and should not be used until the registration procedure
is completed by IANA.

3.3 The Personal Tree

The registration procedure for URL scheme names in the personal tree, tree
is identical as that specified for the initial review step described below vendor tree with the
exception of IANA assigning the vendor a unique name.

4.0 Comments on URL Scheme Name Registrations

Comments on registered URL scheme names may be
omitted and submitted by members
of the community to IANA. These comments will be passed on to the
"owner" of the URL scheme name if possible. Submitters of comments
may request that their comment be registered directly by
submitting the template and an explanation directly attached to IANA
(at iana@iana.org). However, authors of vendor or personal the URL scheme specifications are encouraged to seek community review name
registration itself, and if IANA approves of this the comment whenever that is feasible.

2.3.1. Present will
be made accessible in conjunction with the URL scheme name to the Community for Review

Send registration
itself.

5.0 Change Control

Once a proposed URL scheme name registration to the
"ietf-types@iana.org" mailing list for a two week review period.
This mailing list has been established for published by IANA, the purpose owner of reviewing
proposed URL schemes. URL the
scheme names proposed name may request a change to this mailing
list are not formally registered and should not be used until the
registration procedure is complete. its definition. The intent descriptions
of the public posting is to solicit comments and feedback
on different registration trees above designate the choice owners of scheme name,
each type of registration. The change request follows the same
procedure as the registration request:

(1) Complete the registration template.

(2) Publish the revised scheme syntax and semantics of on the
scheme, and a
ietf-url-schemes list if peer review of any interoperability or security
considerations. The submitter may submit a revised registration, or
withdraw is requested.

(3) Submit the revised registration completely, at any time.

2.3.2. IESG Approval

URL scheme names registered to IANA.

Changes should be requested only when there are serious omission or
errors in the IETF tree must published specification. When review is required, a
change request may be submitted to denied if it renders entities that were valid
under the IESG previous definition invalid under the new definition.

The owner of a URL scheme registration may pass responsibility for approval.

2.3.3.
the registration to another person or agency by informing IANA Registration

Provided that the URL scheme name meets and
the requirements ietf-url-schemes list; this can be done without discussion or
review.

The IESG may reassign responsibility for a URL scheme names and has obtained approval that is necessary, name. The
most common case of this will be to enable changes to be made to
schemes where the author
may submit of the registration request has died, moved out of
contact or is otherwise unable to the IANA, which will register
the scheme name and make the URL scheme name registration available changes that are important to
the community.

2.4. Comments on

URL Scheme Name Registrations

Comments on registered scheme name registrations may not be deleted; URL scheme names may
which are no longer believed appropriate for use can be submitted declared
OBSOLETE by members
of the community to IANA. These comments will be passed on a change to the
"owner" of the their "intended use" field; such URL scheme name if possible. Submitters of comments
may request that their comment
names will be attached to clearly marked in the URL scheme name
registration itself, and if lists published by IANA.

6.0 IANA approves of this Considerations

6.1 Discussion List

A discussion list named "ietf-url-schemes" needs to be created and
maintained at "iana.org". The list MUST be open and MUST NOT
require the comment will submitter to be made accessible in conjunction with subscribed to the scheme name registration
itself.

2.5. list in order to
process a post.

6.2 Location of Registered URL Scheme Name List

URL scheme name registrations will need to be posted in the anonymous
FTP directory
"ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/iana/assignments/URL-scheme-names/".
The scheme syntax and semantics description and other supporting
material may also be published as an Informational RFC by sending it
to the RFC Editor (please follow the instructions to RFC authors,
RFC-2223 [3]).

2.6. IANA

6.3 Procedures for Registering URL scheme names

The IANA will only register URL scheme Scheme Names

Scheme names in the IETF tree will only be registered in response
to a communication from the IESG stating that a given registration
has been approved. Vendor and personal types will be
registered by the IANA automatically and without any formal review
as long as the following minimal conditions are met:

Scheme Name Syntax: The syntax of the requested scheme name
(including the assigned producer designation names in the case of vendor tree registrations), MUST conform to the syntax for such as
specified in RFC [URI-SYNTAX]. While encouraged, the syntax for will be registered automatically
provided that the
actual scheme does not have to conform to registration template contains at least the general syntax
information specified in RFC [URI-SYNTAX].

Security Considerations: The application for registration below. Assignment of a unique scheme name MUST include names
shall be on a discussion of the security
considerations inherent first come, first served basis.

Scheme names in the scheme.

Contact Person: The application MUST include accurate information
regarding a person to contact about the registration.

Author/Change Controller: The application must specify the author
and/or entity responsible for change control of the proposed scheme.

For vendor personal tree registrations, IANA will assign unique designations
to each producer registering one or more scheme names.

2.7. Change Control

Once a URL scheme name has been published by IANA, the author may
request a change to its definition. The descriptions of the
different registration trees above designate the "owners" of each
type of registration. The change request follows the same
procedure as the registration request:

(1) Publish the revised scheme syntax and semantics on the
ietf-types list.

(2) Leave at least two weeks for comments.

(3) Publish using IANA after formal review if required.

Changes should be requested only when there are serious omission or
errors in registered automatically
provided that the published specification. When review is required, a
change request may registration template contains at least the
information specified below. No attempt shall be denied made to prevent
multiple applications from registering the same scheme name even if it renders entities that were valid
under
the previous definition invalid under use of the new definition. schemes are different and incompatible.

The owner of a URL scheme registration may pass responsibility following minimal information must be specified for
the a
registration to another person or agency by informing IANA and in the ietf-types list; this can be done without discussion vendor or review. personal tree:

Scheme Name Syntax: The IESG may reassign responsibility for a URL syntax of the requested scheme name. The
most common name
(including the assigned producer designation in the case of this will be to enable changes vendor
tree registrations), MUST conform to be made the syntax for such as
specified in RFC [URI-SYNTAX]. While encouraged to
schemes where do so, the author of
syntax for the registration has died, moved out of
contact or is otherwise unable actual scheme does not have to make changes that are important conform to the community.

URL scheme name registrations may not be deleted; URL scheme names
which are no longer believed appropriate
general syntax specified in RFC [URI-SYNTAX].

Security Considerations: The application for use can be declared
OBSOLETE by registration of a change to their "intended use" field; such URL
scheme
names will be clearly marked name MUST include a discussion of the security considerations
inherent in the lists published by IANA.

2.8. scheme.

Contact Person: The application MUST include accurate information
regarding a person to contact about the registration.

Author/Change Controller: The application MUST specify the author
and/or entity responsible for change control of the proposed scheme.

7.0 Registration Template

To: ietf-types@iana.org iana@iana.org
Subject: Registration of URL Scheme Name <name>

URL Scheme Name:

Character encoding considerations:

Security considerations:

Interoperability considerations:

Published specification:

Applications which use this URL scheme name:

Additional information:

Person & email address to contact for further information:

Intended usage:

(One of COMMON, LIMITED USE or OBSOLETE)

Author/Change controller:

(Any other information that the author deems interesting may be
added below this line.)

3.0

8.0 Security Considerations

Information that creates or updates a registration needs to be
authenticated.

Information concerning possible security vulnerabilities of a
protocol may change over time. Consequently, claims as to the
security properties of a registered URL scheme may change as well.
As new vulnerabilities are discovered, information about such
vulnerabilities may need to be attached to existing registrations,
so that users are not misled as to the true security properties of a
registered URL scheme.

Delegations of a name space should only be assigned to someone with
adequate security.

4.0

9.0 References

[1] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., Masinter, L., "Uniform Resource
Identifiers (URI): Generic Syntax", RFC [URI-SYNTAX], August 1998

[2] Masinter, L., Alvestrand, H., Zigmond, D., Petke, R.,
"Guidelines for new URL Schemes", RFC [URL-GUIDELINES], August 1998

[3] Postel, J., Reynolds, J., "Instructions to RFC Authors",
RFC 2223, October 1997.

5.0

10.0 Author's Address

Rich Petke
WorldCom Advanced Networks
5000 Britton Road
P. O. Box 5000
Hilliard, OH 43026-5000
USA

Phone: +1 614 723 4157
Fax: +1 614 723 1333
EMail: rpetke@compuserve.net

Appendix A -- Grandfathered URL Scheme Names

A number of URL scheme names, in use prior to 1998, would, if
registered under the guidelines procedures specified in this document, be
placed into either the vendor or personal trees. Re-registration
of those types to reflect the appropriate trees is encouraged, but
not required. Ownership and change control principles outlined in
this document apply to those types as if they had been registered in
the trees described above.

ABOUT:

AOL:

----