Re: [Uri-review] Registration request for "at" URI scheme

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
>