Re: [Uri-review] Review request for gittorrent: URI scheme

[Chris Rebert <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Apr 4, 2016, at 12:51 AM, Graham Klyne wrote:
> I have two comments:
> 
> 1. It is not the place of a URI scheme registration to prohibit the use
> of 
> fragments.  I suggest dropping the sentence "The "fragment" URI component
> is 
> never permitted" under section "semantics".  (The protocol may not allow 
> fragments, but that's no different from HTTP - once a URI is
> dereferenced, it is 
> the format of the resulting representation that determines how if and how 
> fragments may be applied.)

Okay, dropped that sentence.

> 2 The registration says "gittorrent URIs represent Git repositories". 
> Looking 
> at the descriptions, it seems that the URI denotes one of three different 
> things, depending on the form used:
> 
> Type 0: appears to denote the hash of the latest commit in the
> repository.
> 
> Type 1: appears to denote the repository itself, as accessed via a
> bittorrent stream
> 
> Type 2: appears to denote a bitcoin transaction element containing a
> reference 
> to the repository per type 1.
>
> I observe that there appears to be a tight coupling between the URIs and
> the 
> resource representations associated with dereferencing of the URIs.  If
> this is 
> seen as being part of Web architecture (else why use URIs?), then I'd be 
> inclined to be less prescritive about representation details. These may
> be a 
> feature of current implementations, but who knows how future
> implementations may 
> evolve?

Not giving any details on interpreting the URIs seems unhelpfully vague
for implementors of other clients (there's currently only a reference
implementation). However, I've now added verbiage noting the de-facto
and fluid nature of the "specification". Hopefully that helps address
this concern?

Regards,
Chris