draft-mcsweeney-drop-scheme-01

[Ben Niven-Jenkins <[e-mail]>]

Hi Tim,

> On 29 Jul 2020, at 16:40, Timothy Mcsweeney <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Rich,
> 
> >Why is “drop:” unacceptable to you?
> The RFC gave me a choice and I decided on the drop#.  I'm going to stick with it.

I read draft-mcsweeney-drop-scheme-01 and section 2.1 states "The 'drop' scheme was created in a way to be able to reuse current infrastructure making it easy to use and quick to deploy.”

Let us assume for a moment that your proposal is accepted and registered as a URI. There is no widely deployed URI parser that I am aware of that will parse your proposal as you intend and correctly identify the scheme as being ‘drop’ (instead your proposal will be parsed as a relative path of ‘drop’ with a fragment of whatever comes after the ‘#’). 

Therefore, even if you are successful at registering your proposal as a URI you will have failed in your goal to be able to reuse current internet infrastructure because your proposal is not deployable with today’s already deployed internet infrastructure.

It seems to me that you have two choices:

1) Continue to “stick with it” while cutting off your nose to spite your face [1].

2) Take a step back, accept your interpretation of RFC3986 is different to the consensus interpretation of that document, swallow your pride, and adjust your proposal to use ‘:' instead of ‘#' and benefit from being able to leverage already deployed URI parsers to correctly identify your new ‘drop’ scheme.

Regards
Ben

[1] https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/cut-off-your-nose-to-spite-your-face <https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/cut-off-your-nose-to-spite-your-face>