Re: [Uri-review] Initial inquiry into URI proposal (nym)

David Booth <david@dbooth.org> Thu, 27 June 2013 23:11 UTC

Return-Path: <david@dbooth.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 D5F3911E80DF for <uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Jun 2013 16:11:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rcJ3unFtB9z3 for <uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Jun 2013 16:10:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relay03.pair.com (relay03.pair.com [209.68.5.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 70E0E11E8112 for <uri-review@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Jun 2013 16:10:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 1435 invoked by uid 0); 27 Jun 2013 23:10:53 -0000
Received: from 209.6.49.245 (HELO ?192.168.10.6?) (209.6.49.245) by relay03.pair.com with SMTP; 27 Jun 2013 23:10:53 -0000
X-pair-Authenticated: 209.197.49.245
Message-ID: <51CCC67C.2040701@dbooth.org>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 19:10:52 -0400
From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130623 Thunderbird/17.0.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: DataPacRat <datapacrat@gmail.com>
References: <CAB5WduCMF+HMyHPFU1bJkOcbzpyAM063XvCM-uDn2zGAoZkFEg@mail.gmail.com> <C68CB012D9182D408CED7B884F441D4D3471E4101A@nambxv01a.corp.adobe.com> <CAB5WduCz4nRSeMUVKnjmUNEDxzRB54khCiU2-1sqCYr1TKLSFA@mail.gmail.com> <CAB5WduAmmMkwBs5fU4Nzz1S8mTqn_oBp+7j0APSOib51OVSdTA@mail.gmail.com> <C68CB012D9182D408CED7B884F441D4D347221DBE6@nambxv01a.corp.adobe.com> <CAB5WduBfMNnTx1sj2C14vkZRJ+9bibxY=Ee4c6K0KwJF4FQpuw@mail.gmail.com> <C68CB012D9182D408CED7B884F441D4D347221DC55@nambxv01a.corp.adobe.com> <CAB5WduAWR+cxuMDfCsrs1az19=0gX10sbnkqSKnifePgD4=4Lg@mail.gmail.com> <CAB5WduCvMZWu0wLt4Lu2RLTRHtyQv77s4ymy4wtcP9e1OOxvSA@mail.gmail.com> <51CC1E33.6050701@ninebynine.org> <CAB5WduAUbnY4Trnsc41QX_mLkVHDrpB0m_-ObVxCg8gO61hfvw@mail.gmail.com> <51CC7EFF.5070405@ninebynine.org> <CAB5WduC60YbDvyWpaugXH0cBgZDi_+BJgpx26uw1Ms0JJ0iB7Q@mail.gmail.com> <51CC8D1D.5020603@dbooth.org> <CAB5WduBrwBd+_HdtujTruCEVq-O33yfqX0htX=CNhR0Sw71hJA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAB5WduBrwBd+_HdtujTruCEVq-O33yfqX0htX=CNhR0Sw71hJA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "uri-review@ietf.org" <uri-review@ietf.org>, Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
Subject: Re: [Uri-review] Initial inquiry into URI proposal (nym)
X-BeenThere: uri-review@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 23:11:04 -0000

On 06/27/2013 04:32 PM, DataPacRat wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 3:06 PM, David Booth <david@dbooth.org>; wrote:
>> On 06/27/2013 02:43 PM, DataPacRat wrote:
>
>>> What I'm trying to build with nym (one way or another, and with or
>>> without other complications thrown in), is to have some sort of
>>> structure that uses such indirect addressing: to take any given URI,
>>> such as a webpage or mailto: address, and instead of referring
>>> directly to whatever is pointed at by that URI, having the nym use
>>> indirect addressing to be a reference to whatever that URI describes.
>>
>> That sounds very much like
>> http://thing-described-by.org/
>> (or the shorter version http://t-d-b.org/ ), except that
>> http://thing-described-by.org/ also allows the URI to be dereferenceable
>> without requiring clients to implement a new URI scheme or protocol.
>>
>> You might want to look at "Converting New URI Schemes or URN Sub-Schemes to
>> HTTP" also:
>> http://dbooth.org/2006/urn2http/
>
> Thank you for making the suggestion; but it's an approach I already
> thought of, and rejected, for a number of reasons, at least two of
> them major.
>
> For one, both of them involve establishing or using a particular
> domain to use as a storer or redirector; which introduces a single
> point of failure, which goes rather against much of the point of
> having a distributed protocol/format/whatever.

That can be addressed using a .well-known URI suffix instead:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5785

David

>
> The other is a classic bit: "There are fourteen separate sites which
> store personal identity information in different ways: Let's make a
> new one that puts them all together!" -> "There are fifteen separate
> sites which store personal identity information in different ways...".
>
>
>
> Thank you for your time,
> --
> DataPacRat
> "Then again, I could be wrong."
>
>
>