Re: [Uri-review] Initial inquiry into URI proposal (nym)

DataPacRat <> Fri, 21 June 2013 18:44 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D60C21F9AE0 for <>; Fri, 21 Jun 2013 11:44:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.759
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.759 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.614, BAYES_00=-2.599, FRT_ADOBE2=2.455, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fMbpKC0ddBhy for <>; Fri, 21 Jun 2013 11:44:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::235]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80F8621F9CD7 for <>; Fri, 21 Jun 2013 11:44:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id y10so6750640wgg.8 for <>; Fri, 21 Jun 2013 11:44:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=Vd5z5rev36/2uusExGccUVV/rC5+PuvSzPeQY3M+mnk=; b=fkwKR9gIxspTO+ozAJMQSQ4MB9O5arMGjOFyz82G0HD7I68kMmuRv50Lf+Z+OpqHjT EIyPsYtKbkHZwSm+T92usXmYt41xPhizqla9liLv8ci+vFgDAcWZNXvqhSec0gvV4as5 gvPsB9YDl3KDm84Dl5I5IPlfSLGla6NtgOzah4axgZfmTX/f8+7GdjxIJ4LLi359R0a6 ImOfgRF6dKYpzqt5KRkdp6jyL2aG1IpHvfIBVqmHqZxskkzo920UFzvN3sNsJMPesMud if2TEgmaKFXtyPt58pibBDe5rQgYbZCeLYDlS1ZtXxsHeSJ4n7w2lw/W2B+s4vjMygY5 WrAg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id wz4mr9005635wjc.28.1371840267680; Fri, 21 Jun 2013 11:44:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Fri, 21 Jun 2013 11:44:27 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 14:44:27 -0400
Message-ID: <>
From: DataPacRat <>
To: Larry Masinter <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [Uri-review] Initial inquiry into URI proposal (nym)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proposed URI Schemes <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 18:44:29 -0000

Fair enough - thank you for clearing up what you'd meant.

If I may ask, did you receive my reply to your reply? I inquired
whether removing anything would improve the 'extra details' issue you
commented on.

After another question elsewhere, I've come up with another way of
describing what I'm trying to accomplish with nym: that instead of
simply being a direct identifier of a particular resource, it's a
second- or third-order one. That is, while
points to a particular online profile, embedding that URL in a nym
would be using it to point to what that online profile points to: that
is, the person identified by that profile.

Does such an approach suggest how nym might be less 'inappropriate' as
a URI scheme?

On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 2:32 PM, Larry Masinter <> wrote:
> I'm sorry if you took my polite reply as anything other than
> a strong negative. No, 'nym' seems inappropriate as a URI
> scheme as poposed.

>> From: DataPacRat []

>> It's been about a week, and I haven't got any significant feedback on
>> nym, either positive or negative. So, unless some reason crops up to
>> do otherwise, I'll probably work on working through the RFC 4395
>> process whenever I have some spare time to do so; and since there
>> doesn't seem to be any rush, I'll take the time to do the best job I
>> can at every step.
>> (For example, I'm now going to consult with some experts about
>> calibrating the example levels of decibans.)

Thank you for your time,
"Then again, I could be wrong."