Re: [Multiformats] New versions of Multibase and Multihash published

[Manu Sporny <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 2:35 PM Melvin Carvalho <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Could you clarify what you're referencing in regards to Bengo and the associated controversy?

Yes, Bengo said this:

On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 2:15 PM [e-mail] <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Melvin, I believe both dweb: and ipfs: URI schemes are registered with IANA and use CIDs.

to which you responded with this:

On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 2:17 PM Melvin Carvalho <[e-mail]> wrote:
> there's s degree of controversy around dweb: and I'd rather not use that

> I'm ready to utilize your work and register a provisional cid: scheme or urn:cid: scheme, based on your preference.  Should be a simple enough copy and paste.

I suggest you start with a spec that defines the "cid:" scheme (or
re-use the dweb: scheme) if what you're looking for is a URL scheme to
express content identifiers.

> Given the widespread deployment of CID strings, this approach may not be optimal. It seems to divide standardization and might not be backward compatible.

Hrm, how so?

> However, if you feel strongly about this direction, I'm open to considering two standardization paths.

Yes, CIDs are out of scope at present and I'm afraid that if we put
them in scope at this late juncture that we'll get objections.
However, a separate standardization path that defines a new CID URL
scheme, taken through dispatch, and then covered by an existing group
(or added to the charter for this group after our first iteration)
sounds like a viable path forward.

-- manu

-- 
Manu Sporny - https://www.linkedin.com/in/manusporny/
Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
https://www.digitalbazaar.com/