[Http-use] Revisiting the 'no more type://' constructs thing..
George Michaelson <firstname.lastname@example.org> Tue, 06 October 2015 17:34 UTC
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB3481A1AB6 for <email@example.com>; Tue, 6 Oct 2015 10:34:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.978 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([18.104.22.168]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MmEzFaenJDcz for <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Tue, 6 Oct 2015 10:34:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qg0-f42.google.com (mail-qg0-f42.google.com [22.214.171.124]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 81BA01A1AB5 for <email@example.com>; Tue, 6 Oct 2015 10:34:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qgev79 with SMTP id v79so180644951qge.0 for <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Tue, 06 Oct 2015 10:34:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=oL5E2H2P+/X+iNBKLTPVQT0bQ378dIysaBihqIoFTEM=; b=cwFbkn2J/aIgpAnQd41Tw/aEW1326Ido70cw5rG10ePgawDcUgmVb0mC7v0GU38dac JIYP166YdfxaItfActiMA92o7KPWZblJvOr37cR6ueF3XlUzPNQ70JApCoj+lbZwpKcj /Hjl0TwEdW8o1SctqgN1oegiEIa5ukSimC2APzKqE3pxK39D/R2IU/R/BD17Ro058N51 r9ycJQlJA0ZGomCeE8o3684eDFN5PSk6ocOutsUDP8vHASwvh6/ZGO/51Gq1+j64UkCi X9dGiZ0rFtGSwdXu3E8CfejNR5H3QPzlPywgTsMNjkSHNpPmYABuLwzAJtPn7kP4WqV+ wTrg==
X-Received: by 10.140.131.198 with SMTP id 189mr51422294qhd.83.1444152872490; Tue, 06 Oct 2015 10:34:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.55.101.207 with HTTP; Tue, 6 Oct 2015 10:34:32 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2015 14:34:32 -0300
From: George Michaelson <email@example.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113513eaf76e450521730a05"
Subject: [Http-use] Revisiting the 'no more type://' constructs thing..
List-Id: "Discussion and review of IETF protocols that use HTTP and related Web technologies \(sometimes called \"RESTful\" protocols\)" <http-use.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/http-use>, <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/http-use>, <mailto:email@example.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2015 17:34:35 -0000
I may have misunderstood it, but I am getting a sense from the .onion debate that there is a substantive push-back in the HTTP/Web community, to adding new type: instances in URI. The rest of this, is predicated on that being a "thing" -If I've misunderstood, then I guess the rest has less relevance. But I have this impression from a couple of f2f conversations with people who help push along web related work in IETF, and both times I got the distinct impression nobody much in web land wants more types in the set of ftp:// http:// mail:// form of type://value notation. Contrariwise, inside my narrow view of what a domain name is, I think coercing a value to a specific label in the DNS, to avoid having to say tor://somepath/ was a huge mistake for domain names. I think this very strongly. Very. Its just wrong. Maybe its me, but I think these aren't equally valid concerns. One, is (to my mind) a pragmatic view in the web community, that new type:// instances are 'hard'. The other, is an architectural failing, a decision which takes names as pure names, and converts them to have magic. Magic is bad. Is this on-topic for this list? Is this real? -G
- [Http-use] Revisiting the 'no more type://' const… George Michaelson