Re: [dispatch] Finding a home for Multibase and Multihash

Preliminary question:
Are these protocols fixed in the sense that they cannot be changed or are
you
proposing that the IETF adopt them and potentially make breaking changes?

-Ekr

On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 5:51 PM Volker Mische <volker.mische@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I'm Volker Mische and work for Protocol Labs. I've been in the
> decentralized web space for about 5 years, before that in databases.
> I've been involved in Multibase and Multihash during those 5 years.
>
> I'm one of the maintainers of `rust-multihash` [1] and `rust-multibase`
> [2]. Am happy to provide feedback during the standardization process and
> update the implementations accordingly.
>
> My interest in Multihash is not only due to my professional involvement
> at Protocol Labs, but I also see fit outside of the projects Protocol
> Labs is building/supporting. I e.g. also proposed using Multihash in the
> hash extension of the STAC catalog standard [3], which was accepted.
> They were in need of a solution that Multihash provides: identifying a
> hash. Having this standardized would be great, as then people wouldn't
> need to come up with their own solutions.
>
> For future uses of Multhash I could imagine a Multihash-enabled checksum
> tool. You wouldn't need to know which hash functions was used to create
> the checksums (e.g. if the filename is lost), but you could directly
> derive it from the checksum itself.
>
> [1]: https://github.com/multiformats/rust-multihash/
> [2]: https://github.com/multiformats/rust-multibase/
> [3]:
>
> https://github.com/stac-extensions/file/blob/2d9b80e0e6b81e5d9983635b794aa89990b7f480/README.md#checksums
>
> Cheers,
>    Volker
>
> _______________________________________________
> dispatch mailing list
> dispatch@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch
>