The 'tag' URI Scheme
RFC 4151

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 07 and is now closed.

(Ted Hardie) Yes

(Harald Alvestrand) No Objection

Comment (2004-12-16 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
Reviewed by Joel Halpern, Gen-ART

His review:

 This draft is on the right track for publication as an Informational
 RFC, but I think it has an open issue, described in the review.

 Specifically, it is using informational publication to create a new
 URI scheme. My reading of the scheme definition documents indicates
 that informational is for use with existing schemes, and PS is to be
 used for new schemes?

 Nits: In listing the alternatives, I am sure there is a good reason
 why URNs won't work for this problem. (It may be as simple as ~they
 look confusing to humans~. Whatever the reason, shouldn't it be

 In the security section, the discussion of malicious parties could
 use more work. I can not tell how the second sentence (using
 reputable assigning authorities) helps with the threat of someone who
 simply lies and makes up tags from a space he does not own. I
 suspect that there is an assumption about how tags get associated
 with resources that mitigates this, but I can not determine the
 assumption from this document.

(Margaret Cullen) No Objection

(Bill Fenner) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Sam Hartman) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2005-02-23)
No email
send info
I believe we're following the wrong procedure for this document.  I do
not believe this document meets the criteria for URI registration
using an informational RFC.  In particular, I do not believe the
scheme is in wide use.  However I'm not willing to block on this issue
for this document because I believe this document is well written and
meets the quality we would require of a proposed standard.

(Scott Hollenbeck) No Objection

(Russ Housley) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2005-02-16)
No email
send info
  The "Further Information and Discussion of this Document" section
  needs to be deleted prior to publication as an RFC.

(David Kessens) No Objection

(Allison Mankin) No Objection

(Bert Wijnen) No Objection

Comment (2004-12-16 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
On page 6:
   Examples of tag URIs are:,2001:web/externalHome,2004-05:Sandro,2001-09-15:TimKindberg:presentations:UBath2004-05-19,1999:blog-555,2002:int,2004:r%C3%A9sum%C3%A9

I kind of understand why these examples are not accoring to our rules
and guidelines for examples. If we want to keep them as is, then maybe
a note as to why we do not follow the rules makes sense.