Re: [Uri-review] [IANA #1271079] Registration of dhttp Schema name (uri-schemes) - IANA ACTION REQUEST

[Graham Klyne <[e-mail]>]

Hi Sabrina,

The public discussion on this appears to have run its, course, so I'd like to 
now request that the note below be added the the URI scheme registry entry for 
'dhttp'.

Thank you,

Graham.


## IANA reviewer note

This scheme has been provisionally registered under the “first come first 
served” policy set out in RFC 7595.  This means that the scheme has not been 
formally reviewed in the IETF, and is not recommended by the IETF for general 
use on the open Internet.

Further, the `dhttp` scheme is considered harmful by some in the IETF [R1] for 
at least the following reasons:

1. it creates confusion by associating with the existing "http" and "https" 
schemes of HTTP, even though the described protocol does not use HTTP. This 
could be an issue for applications that use the prefix "http://" and "https://" 
to identify links within text without parsing the surrounding context.

2. ‘dhttp’ is defined to be an alias of the provisionally registered ‘web3’ 
scheme, and URI aliases are, in general, considered harmful to the World Wide 
Web [R2].

3. Using the name ‘dhttp’ appears to be an attempt to legitimise web3 [R3] by 
association with HTTP (the current World Wide Web’s primary interaction protocol).

This note is intended to draw attention to potential problems that might arise 
if this scheme were to be used widely on the open Internet, and does not itself 
constitute a position by the IETF or IANA on the considerations raised.

[R1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/uri-review/4Sj8k6rLZzqZsGgMEe6fLM-wE4U/

[R2] https://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#uri-aliases

[R3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web3



On 28/04/2023 17:45, Sabrina Tanamal via RT wrote:
> Hi Graham,
>
> Just following up on this thread. Are there any actions required from IANA?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Sabrina Tanamal
> Lead IANA Services Specialist
>
> On Thu Apr 20 10:34:36 2023, [e-mail] wrote:
>> I see two possible ways forward:
>>
>> 1. There is an "escape hatch" clause in the registration procedure
>> that allows
>> the IESG to be final arbiter of any contentious registration.
>>
>> 2. As scheme reviewer, I can request a note be added to the registry
>> entry
>> pointing out that the scheme is contentious, the reasons why, and as
>> such is NOT
>> RECOMMENDED for use on the open Internet.  I would be reluctant to do
>> so on my
>> opinion alone, but I'm seeing sufficient concern expressed here for
>> that to be a
>> reasonable request.
>>
>> Personally, I think the latter is preferable, for reasons that Ted
>> mentions in a
>> later email.  There are a number of provisionally registered schemes
>> that got
>> snuck in un-noticed before we set up the process of sending
>> notifications of
>> provisional registrations to this list (following the last London IETF
>> meeting),
>> and I'd be inclined to request a similar note be added to the 'web3'
>> scheme.
>>
>> #g
>>
>>
>> On 19/04/2023 10:18, Ted Hardie wrote:
>>> Hi Roy,
>>>
>>> The current list of requirements for provisionals is in RFC 7595,
>>> Section 4:
>>>
>>> The scheme name must meet the syntactic requirements ofSection 3.8.
>>>
>>>     o  There must not already be an entry with the same scheme name.
>>> In
>>>        the unfortunate case that there are multiple, different uses of
>>>        the same scheme name, the Designated Expert can approve a
>>> request
>>>        to modify an existing entry to note the separate use.
>>>
>>>     o  Contact information identifying the person supplying the
>>>        registration must be included.  Previously unregistered schemes
>>>        discovered in use can be registered by third parties (even if
>>> not
>>>        on behalf of those who created the scheme).  In this case, both
>>>        the registering party and the scheme creator SHOULD be
>>> identified.
>>>
>>>     o  If no permanent, citable specification for the scheme
>>> definition
>>>        is included, credible reasons for not providing it SHOULD be
>>>        given.
>>>
>>>     o  The scheme definition SHOULD include clear security
>>> considerations
>>>        (Section 3.7) or explain why a full security analysis is not
>>>        available (e.g., in a third-party scheme registration).
>>>
>>>     o  If the scheme definition does not meet the guidelines laid out
>>> in
>>>        Section 3, the differences and reasons SHOULD be noted.
>>>
>>> While it may be the case that using 'dhttp' implies something to
>>> humans about
>>> the relationship toother schemes, it meets the current test that
>>> "there must
>>> not already be an entry with the same scheme name".  As you will no
>>> doubt
>>> recall, we loosened the registration of provisionals in this way
>>> because folks
>>> were minting URI schemes without registration and the risk of
>>> collision was
>>> getting worse as a result.
>>>
>>> I am not as clear, though, about whether this registration is
>>> intended to
>>> deprecate web3 (which is also a provisionally registered URI scheme)
>>> so that
>>> web3 could be marked historic.  If that is the case, we could at
>>> least
>>> eliminate the alias scheme issue which you note below.
>>>
>>> Just my personal opinion, of course,
>>>
>>> Ted
>>>
>>> On Tue, Apr 18, 2023 at 4:45 PM Roy T. Fielding <[e-mail]>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Is there a way that we can block provisional registrations that are
>>>> actively
>>> harmful?
>>>>    1) this is abusing the existing http and https schemes;
>>>>    2) alias schemes are harmful, in general; and,
>>>>    3) web3 is a scam that we shouldn't make respectable by
>>>> association with HTTP.
>>>>
>>>> .....Roy
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Apr 17, 2023, at 4:14 PM, Sabrina Tanamal via RT
>>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>> Hi Qi,
>>>>>
>>>>> We've added provisional URI scheme dhttp to the registry:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.iana.org/assignments/uri-schemes/prov/dhttp
>>>>>
>>>>> Registry: https://www.iana.org/assignments/uri-schemes
>>>>>
>>>>> Per the designated expert for URI Schemes registry, we're also
>>>>> notifying
>>> the [e-mail] mailing list upon completing a provisional
>>> registration.
>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Sabrina Tanamal
>>>>> Lead IANA Services Specialist
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon Apr 17 03:05:35 2023, [e-mail] wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Amanda,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We would like to register dhttp:// schema with the following
>>>>>> information
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Schema name: dhttp
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Status: Provisional
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Applications/protocols that use this scheme:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This schema dhttp:// is the alias of schema web3://
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Contact:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Qi Zhou
>>>>>> 55 E 3rd Ave, San Mateo, CA 94401
>>>>>> mailto: [e-mail]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Change controller:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Qi Zhou
>>>>>> 55 E 3rd Ave, San Mateo, CA 94401
>>>>>> mailto: [e-mail]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> References:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A draft specification can be found at
>>>>>> https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-4804 (replacing web3:// with
>>>>>> dhttp://)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Scheme syntax:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "dhttp://" [userinfo "@"] contractName [":" chainid] path ["?"
>>>>>> query]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Qi
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Uri-review mailing list
>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Uri-review mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Uri-review mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review

-- 
Graham Klyne
mailto:[e-mail]
http://www.ninebynine.org
Mastodon: @[e-mail]
GitHub/Skype: @gklyne