Subject: [apps-discuss] Registering URI scheme conflicts

From: Dave Thaler <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2014 10:46:41 +0000

Someone asked a question about whether conflicts were known to happen,
and I said yes.  One example is the udp: scheme, where both MPEG and 
BitTorrent use it with different syntax and different semantics.
See http://www.iana.org/assignments/uri-schemes/prov/udp
for the third-party registration of both.

RFC 4395 said:
>   o  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 IESG may approve a request to modify an
>      existing entry to note the separate use.)  

To which there was already comment in the iri wg's 4385bis source:
> [[CREF5: Open Issue:
>  Must the IESG do this?  Why not the Expert Reviewer?  --??]]

In the case that occurred during the third-party registration experiment,
there was no "existing entry" to modify, both were submitted in the same
request.  To my knowledge the IESG was not consulted, and the RFC is
ambiguous as to whether they should have been, it only says they need
to approve if modifying an existing entry.

-Dave