Re: [Uri-review] [IANA #1270959] Registration of dhttp Schema name (uri-schemes)

[Ted Hardie <[e-mail]>]

Hi Graham,

This looks like a reasonable summary of the discussion around dhttp.

regards,

Ted Hardie

On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 4:40 PM Graham Klyne <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> (IANA cc'ed, but no action requested at this time.)
>
>
> I've drafted a possible note for addition to the provisional registration
> template for 'dhttp' [1]
>
> [1] https://www.iana.org/assignments/uri-schemes/prov/dhttp
>
> The intent is not to make a definitive statement about the goodness or
> badness of the scheme, but simply to act as a health warning of potential
> issues, and to highlight that its publication is NOT a recommendation for
> its use by the IETF.  Does this look reasonable?
>
> Proposed note follows.
>
> #g
>
>
> ## 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 around the existing HTTP and HTTPS schemes.
> 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. the activity known as “web3” [R3] has attracted much criticism, and is
> considered by some to be an attempt to insinuate controversial blockchain
> technology into the fabric of the World Wide Web.  Using the name ‘dhttp’
> appears to be an attempt to legitimise web3 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 20/04/2023 11:34, Graham Klyne 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 of  Section 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 to other 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 [e-mail]://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review
>
> --
> Graham Klynemailto:[e-mail] <[e-mail]>http://www.ninebynine.org
> Mastodon: @[e-mail]
> GitHub/Skype: @gklyne
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Uri-review mailing [e-mail]://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review
>
> --
> Graham Klynemailto:[e-mail] <[e-mail]>http://www.ninebynine.org
> Mastodon: @[e-mail]
> GitHub/Skype: @gklyne
>
>