Re: [Uri-review] Two new URI schemes for review

I looked at this proposal, and had three points of confusion.

a) Why is this being done as a "hierarchical" URI scheme, when the URI 
is not, in fact, hierarchical?

That is, why ni://example.com/....?

When implementations that manipulate URIs encounter the :// after the 
scheme, that should be a signal for them to associate meaning to 
"relative" URIs, as in:

base URI: 
ni://example.com/sha-256;f4OxZX_x_FO5LcGBSKHWXfwtSx-j1ncoSt3SABJtkGk

... what does it mean to do "index.html" relative to said URI?

Can I compute a "sha-512" relative to the given URI? (Answer: no)

I conclude that this should not be a hierarchical scheme.

b) Why isn't this just a URN with a particular namespace identifier?

As in:

urn:nhi:example.com:sha-256:f4OxZX_x_FO5LcGBSKHWXfwtSx-j1ncoSt3SABJtkGk

(where nhi I just made up, but stands for "named hashed id", because 
URNs require at least three letters for namespace ids)

That seems like a better fit.

c) Since there are more known SHA standards, why not declare them all in 
this initial proposal, so that sha-384, and sha-512 are already defined?

-Eric.

On 4/30/12 5:56 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We have a draft [1] that requests two new URI schemes.
>
> The core WG are likely to want to use these we think
> and possibly decade, but they're intended to be generally
> useful as well.
>
> Barry Leiba is planning to AD sponsor this and Alexey
> Melnikov will be shepherding so if you can cc them ase
> well as the authors on any questions or comments that'd
> be good.
>
> I hope the plan is to IETF LC this soon, once this
> review and the .well-known registration review are
> done.
>
> Thanks,
> Stephen.
>
> [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-farrell-decade-ni-05
> _______________________________________________
> Uri-review mailing list
> Uri-review@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review