Section 11.1.2: requesting more details for "Reference" field contents

[EskoDijk]

Section 11.1.2 has for the "Reference" field: "a reference to a document, if available, or the registrant" -> maybe better to clarify to "a reference to a document requesting the registration, if available, or the registrant"

Is this intended? The initial registry contents only have "RFC-XXXX" as the reference which is the document requesting the registration, not the document describing the scheme semantics.

If the Designated Expert at own initiative requests the registration per 11.1.1 , what would the "Reference" field contain then? The name of the expert or the RFC number that defines the new scheme?

[cabo]

The document would be the reference document, not the IANA form for a registration request.
The purpose is to document what the registration is about. Generally, this will be copied from the URI Scheme registration, unless there indeed is a separate document. The initial registration is a bit of a special case, because we won't fill in all that information for hundreds of schemes...

[EskoDijk]

Ok, clear, in that case it's best to state the expected contents for all future/upcoming registrations: e.g.

a reference to a document defining the scheme, if available, or the registrant"

Then it's also clear what the designated expert should put in this field: the document reference for the newly registered scheme.

[cabo]

a reference to a document defining the scheme, if available, or the registrant"

That may not always exist, but something may, that's why we left this a bit open (i.e., recurred to the general purpose of a "reference" column in an IANA registration).

[EskoDijk]

Ok so that could also be:

a reference to a document, if available, or the registrant. A document that describes the scheme should preferably be referenced.

Just as sanity check: if an IETF stream document requests IANA to add an existing scheme "foo" to the CRI Scheme Numbers registry, then the RFC number of this document will not appear in the registry so it's not possible to trace back who made the registration or what document did?

[cabo]

I'm wondering how much of this needs to be in the document. I would normally expect IANA to put useful reference information in there (original scheme registration, potentially document that applies this to the CRI space). For the Schemes in Appendix A, the reference currently is RFC-XXXX.

[EskoDijk]

Possibly by default IANA would just include the name of the registrant there, if the registrant doesn't supply any document link in the registration request. (That's allowed given the current text.)

Since it's expert review we could also expect the Designated Expert to complete references?

For example if someone registers CRI for scheme "example" which doesn't exist at the time, and it gets approved, and 2 years later an RFC defines scheme "example" then the expert should notice this according to 11.1.1 and the CRI registry entry can be updated with the reference.

Or do the same if the registrant forgot to include a reference to the RFC defining the scheme. (and IANA didn't ask for a reference)

Ok for me to leave the text as is, if we don't want to be too restrictive. My last text proposal was just a hint to the registrant what "a document" should be.