Re: [Uri-review] Registration request for "at" URI scheme
bnewbold@robocracy.org Mon, 08 May 2023 16:28 UTC
Return-Path: <bnewbold@robocracy.org>
X-Original-To: uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB7BBC13AE57 for <uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 May 2023 09:28:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GgFy8OumYoHN for <uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 May 2023 09:28:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.robocracy.org (adze.robocracy.org [IPv6:2600:3c03::f03c:91ff:feb0:af1f]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A5518C13AE44 for <uri-review@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 May 2023 09:28:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from adze.robocracy.org (adze.robocracy.org [IPv6:2600:3c03::f03c:91ff:feb0:af1f]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: bnewbold) by mail.robocracy.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8F6319C85B; Mon, 8 May 2023 16:28:12 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Mon, 08 May 2023 16:28:11 +0000
From: bnewbold@robocracy.org
To: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
cc: Eliot Lear <lear@lear.ch>, Paul Frazee <pfrazee@gmail.com>, Devin Ivy <devin@blueskyweb.xyz>, uri-review@ietf.org, Jay Graber <jay@blueskyweb.xyz>, Bryan Newbold <bryan@blueskyweb.xyz>
In-Reply-To: <CA+9kkMC6Azu+TxYOxYjycXwR8w0k5RBXYCK+oSj==dkA+Qjqbg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <38cbc4a-cac2-71b7-7234-87b9239824a@robocracy.org>
References: <f456a86-b079-2bec-f698-f2fc4fb7e76b@robocracy.org> <CAKaEYhKaB9=NVGY_eQk3vq4zGEy_N7FNy9yj02wdz0DuHS2wqw@mail.gmail.com> <CABFYohi+CD33Hn9SnPk3Fk+_W3=8pwtnHeGF1KWVQZG4bV_hnA@mail.gmail.com> <CAKaEYhK=snie3_nAz3CdJoMDh=fx6zmGwbcc9m_jESdjV2ym3w@mail.gmail.com> <81587de4-d623-01d2-9a68-0f797a1eec6b@lear.ch> <54504db-83d3-c2e3-7820-3275323d5bd@robocracy.org> <ee6f60d9-5f19-3344-bd26-e87f881aa5a6@lear.ch> <CA+9kkMC6Azu+TxYOxYjycXwR8w0k5RBXYCK+oSj==dkA+Qjqbg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="8323329-1669965279-1683563292=:3820568"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/uri-review/M-8BWwZola3DMg0CtrTKyVzENGM>
Subject: Re: [Uri-review] Registration request for "at" URI scheme
X-BeenThere: uri-review@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proposed URI Schemes <uri-review.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/uri-review>, <mailto:uri-review-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/uri-review/>
List-Post: <mailto:uri-review@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:uri-review-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review>, <mailto:uri-review-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 May 2023 16:28:18 -0000
Thanks for the clarification, and the advice. --bryan On Mon, 8 May 2023, Ted Hardie wrote: > I agree with Eliot here. The registry is first-come-first-served because > we want to avoid collisions; having a single namespace for this is pretty > much a requirement for the overall system to function properly. But, as > you can tell, there is a period after a string is minted internally and > starts turning up in code before it shows up at the registry (or even on > this list). Very short strings and strings with mnemonic significance > (like the wordplay that led you to "at") are at increased risk for > collision. > > Your repo refers to this consistently as atproto, and atproto or even atp > is less like likely to create a later collision; my advice (and it is just > advice) is to consider using one of those. > > regards, > > Ted Hardie > > > On Mon, May 8, 2023 at 9:18 AM Eliot Lear <lear@lear.ch> wrote: > >> Hi Bryan, >> >> As Alex mentioned, I wasn't referring to URI schemes, but rather that the >> word "at" is not descript, reused in many different contexts, from Austria >> to a preposition, to a scheduling command in UNIX to various other acronym >> expansions. My understanding is that the registry is FCFS, and so this is >> *advice*. Whatever you choose you'll be stuck with. If you even added >> an extra character or two that could make more clear what this is, you may >> find it helpful later on. >> >> Eliot >> On 08.05.23 00:14, bnewbold@robocracy.org wrote: >> >> >> Hi Eliot, >> >> We did do both some general search, and checked against the URI schema >> registry when starting work on the protocol, and are not aware of any >> problematic existing use or conflicts the the use of the URI scheme name. >> >> The closest confusion we are aware of with 'at' is the Hayes AT command >> originally used with modems. We are unaware of any URI scheme specifically >> for the Hayes AT command set, and while that command set is still in broad >> use, it does not seem likely to start using one now. >> >> "at" matches our protocol name ("AT" stands for "Authenticated Transfer"). >> There is a bit of wordplay going on with "@" (the "at symbol"), which is >> used as a prefix convention in social media to indicate a user handle. AT >> Protocol is primarily used for social media applications (at least, that is >> the focus at present). >> >> As precedent, there are several other two-character URI schemes in the >> current registry. >> >> URIs starting with "at://" are already being used by several >> implementations of the AT Protocol. At this point it seems like a change >> would only add to confusion. >> >> --bryan >> >> On Sun, 7 May 2023, Eliot Lear wrote: >> >> As another casual observer, can I suggest that you use a slightly more >> descriptive scheme name? "at" is heavily overloaded, and a name that >> provides at least a guess what this is will serve the user better. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Uri-review mailing list >> Uri-review@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review >> >
- [Uri-review] Registration request for "at" URI sc… bnewbold
- Re: [Uri-review] Registration request for "at" UR… Melvin Carvalho
- Re: [Uri-review] Registration request for "at" UR… bnewbold
- Re: [Uri-review] Registration request for "at" UR… Tim Bray
- Re: [Uri-review] Registration request for "at" UR… Melvin Carvalho
- Re: [Uri-review] Registration request for "at" UR… bnewbold
- Re: [Uri-review] Registration request for "at" UR… Melvin Carvalho
- Re: [Uri-review] Registration request for "at" UR… Eliot Lear
- Re: [Uri-review] Registration request for "at" UR… bnewbold
- Re: [Uri-review] Registration request for "at" UR… Alexander Mayrhofer
- Re: [Uri-review] Registration request for "at" UR… bnewbold
- Re: [Uri-review] Registration request for "at" UR… Eliot Lear
- Re: [Uri-review] Registration request for "at" UR… Ted Hardie
- Re: [Uri-review] Registration request for "at" UR… bnewbold
- Re: [Uri-review] Registration request for "at" UR… Tim Bray
- Re: [Uri-review] Registration request for "at" UR… Melvin Carvalho
- Re: [Uri-review] Registration request for "at" UR… Graham Klyne
- Re: [Uri-review] Registration request for "at" UR… Paul Frazee
- Re: [Uri-review] Registration request for "at" UR… Melvin Carvalho
- Re: [Uri-review] Registration request for "at" UR… Melvin Carvalho
- Re: [Uri-review] Registration request for "at" UR… Paul Frazee
- Re: [Uri-review] Registration request for "at" UR… Martin J. Dürst
- Re: [Uri-review] Registration request for "at" UR… Melvin Carvalho
- Re: [Uri-review] Registration request for "at" UR… Melvin Carvalho
- Re: [Uri-review] Registration request for "at" UR… Graham Klyne
- Re: [Uri-review] Registration request for "at" UR… bnewbold
- Re: [Uri-review] Registration request for "at" UR… bnewbold
- Re: [Uri-review] Registration request for "at" UR… bnewbold