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

[Melvin Carvalho <[e-mail]>]

ne 20. 8. 2023 v 17:24 odesílatel Manu Sporny <[e-mail]>
napsal:

> On Sun, Aug 20, 2023 at 10:57 AM Melvin Carvalho
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > Is it back compat (ie using the same string of characters) with the
> widely used CID format?
>
> The short answer is "yes, almost certainly".
>
> If by "widely used CID format", you mean the Multicodec headers 0x01,
> 0x02 and 0x03, then yes, nothing in these specifications prevent the
> usage of those headers in a Multibase-encoded value and the Multihash
> value headers don't conflict with the CID value headers.
>
> However...
>
> > Can I turn a CID into a URI and what would that look like?
> >
> > mh://<cid>
> >
> > ni://mh/<cid>
> >
> > Something like this?
>
> No, because CIDs are not file hashes, so you can't just use Multihash for
> them:
>

I believe using a CID as an identifier is crucial, given its wide
deployment and the need for character-to-character comparison. I had
anticipated that this group would address this. How can we incorporate a
CID into a URI? Does the spec not cover this, necessitating a new URI
scheme? Implementing another scheme might seem redundant, but if needed, we
can explore it. There seems great utility in reusing the widely deployed
CID format can be seamlessly integrated into a URI while maintaining its
character integrity.


>
>
> https://docs.ipfs.tech/concepts/content-addressing/#cids-are-not-file-hashes
>
> IOW, nothing we're doing here precludes encoding a CID in a Multibase
> value... but CIDs (all versions of them) contain more information than
> just the content hash itself (which is all Multihash encodes). We are
> not standardizing CIDs at this point in time, but we're not precluding
> their usage or future standardization, either.
>
> -- manu
>
> --
> Manu Sporny - https://www.linkedin.com/in/manusporny/
> Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
> https://www.digitalbazaar.com/
>