| Internet-Draft | update-prov-uri-schemes | October 2026 |
| Hardie | Expires 19 April 2027 | [Page] |
This documents updates the registration procedures for provisional URI schemes to handle issues not present at the time RFC 7595 was written.¶
This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.¶
Status information for this document may be found at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hardie-bcp35-update/.¶
Discussion of this document takes place on the IANABIS Working Group mailing list (mailto:IANABIS@ietf.org), which is archived at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/IANABIS/. Subscribe at https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/IANABIS/.¶
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.¶
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.¶
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."¶
This Internet-Draft will expire on 19 April 2027.¶
Copyright (c) 2026 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 Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.¶
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 provide a relatively light weight first-come first-served procedure that minimizes the friction in the registration process. A number of registrations have highlighted the need for some additional procedural checks in certain cases, and this document updates the guidelines for provisional registrations to provide those.¶
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.¶
'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) that is not limited to a private environment within a single organization. '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 three characters long or receive the approval of the Designated Expert.¶
The scheme name must receive the approval of the designated expert if it appears in a word list supplied by the Designated Expert to IANA. That list will commonly include organizational names, acronyms, and common words likely to generate collisions. IANA may also consult the Designated Expert to confirm the suitability of any provisional scheme name.¶
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.¶
The security considerations for BCP 35 are set out in RFC 7595 and are unchanged by this update.¶
After the approval of this document IANA should process relevant request using these guidelines.¶
Thanks to Amanda Baber for raising the issues with the current guidelines. Thanks as well to Mark Nottingham, Michael Richardson, Martin Durst, and S. Moonesamy for their comments on the issues and potential resolutions.¶