Re: [Uri-review] [IANA #1270959] Registration of dhttp Schema name (uri-schemes)

[Graham Klyne <[e-mail]>]

I see two possible ways forward:

1. There is an "escape hatch" clause in the registration procedure that allows 
the IESG to be final arbiter of any contentious registration.

2. As scheme reviewer, I can request a note be added to the registry entry 
pointing out that the scheme is contentious, the reasons why, and as such is NOT 
RECOMMENDED for use on the open Internet.  I would be reluctant to do so on my 
opinion alone, but I'm seeing sufficient concern expressed here for that to be a 
reasonable request.

Personally, I think the latter is preferable, for reasons that Ted mentions in a 
later email.  There are a number of provisionally registered schemes that got 
snuck in un-noticed before we set up the process of sending notifications of 
provisional registrations to this list (following the last London IETF meeting), 
and I'd be inclined to request a similar note be added to the 'web3' scheme.

#g


On 19/04/2023 10:18, Ted Hardie wrote:
> Hi Roy,
>
> The current list of requirements for provisionals is in RFC 7595, Section 4:
>
> The scheme name must meet the syntactic requirements ofSection 3.8.
>
>    o  There must not already be an entry with the same scheme name.  In
>       the unfortunate case that there are multiple, different uses of
>       the same scheme name, the Designated Expert can approve a request
>       to modify an existing entry to note the separate use.
>
>    o  Contact information identifying the person supplying the
>       registration must be included.  Previously unregistered schemes
>       discovered in use can be registered by third parties (even if not
>       on behalf of those who created the scheme).  In this case, both
>       the registering party and the scheme creator SHOULD be identified.
>
>    o  If no permanent, citable specification for the scheme definition
>       is included, credible reasons for not providing it SHOULD be
>       given.
>
>    o  The scheme definition SHOULD include clear security considerations
>       (Section 3.7) or explain why a full security analysis is not
>       available (e.g., in a third-party scheme registration).
>
>    o  If the scheme definition does not meet the guidelines laid out in
>       Section 3, the differences and reasons SHOULD be noted.
>
> While it may be the case that using 'dhttp' implies something to humans about 
> the relationship toother schemes, it meets the current test that "there must 
> not already be an entry with the same scheme name".  As you will no doubt 
> recall, we loosened the registration of provisionals in this way because folks 
> were minting URI schemes without registration and the risk of collision was 
> getting worse as a result.
>
> I am not as clear, though, about whether this registration is intended to 
> deprecate web3 (which is also a provisionally registered URI scheme) so that 
> web3 could be marked historic.  If that is the case, we could at least 
> eliminate the alias scheme issue which you note below.
>
> Just my personal opinion, of course,
>
> Ted
>
> On Tue, Apr 18, 2023 at 4:45 PM Roy T. Fielding <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > Is there a way that we can block provisional registrations that are actively 
> harmful?
> >
> >   1) this is abusing the existing http and https schemes;
> >   2) alias schemes are harmful, in general; and,
> >   3) web3 is a scam that we shouldn't make respectable by association with HTTP.
> >
> > .....Roy
> >
> >
> > > On Apr 17, 2023, at 4:14 PM, Sabrina Tanamal via RT 
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Qi,
> > >
> > > We've added provisional URI scheme dhttp to the registry:
> > >
> > > https://www.iana.org/assignments/uri-schemes/prov/dhttp
> > >
> > > Registry: https://www.iana.org/assignments/uri-schemes
> > >
> > > Per the designated expert for URI Schemes registry, we're also notifying 
> the [e-mail] mailing list upon completing a provisional registration.
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > >
> > > Sabrina Tanamal
> > > Lead IANA Services Specialist
> > >
> > > On Mon Apr 17 03:05:35 2023, [e-mail] wrote:
> > >> Hi Amanda,
> > >>
> > >> We would like to register dhttp:// schema with the following information
> > >>
> > >> Schema name: dhttp
> > >>
> > >> Status: Provisional
> > >>
> > >> Applications/protocols that use this scheme:
> > >>
> > >> This schema dhttp:// is the alias of schema web3://
> > >>
> > >> Contact:
> > >>
> > >> Qi Zhou
> > >> 55 E 3rd Ave, San Mateo, CA 94401
> > >> mailto: [e-mail]
> > >>
> > >> Change controller:
> > >>
> > >> Qi Zhou
> > >> 55 E 3rd Ave, San Mateo, CA 94401
> > >> mailto: [e-mail]
> > >>
> > >> References:
> > >>
> > >> A draft specification can be found at
> > >> https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-4804 (replacing web3:// with dhttp://)
> > >>
> > >> Scheme syntax:
> > >>
> > >> "dhttp://" [userinfo "@"] contractName [":" chainid] path ["?" query]
> > >>
> > >> Thanks!
> > >>
> > >> Best regards,
> > >>
> > >> - Qi
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Uri-review mailing list
> > > [e-mail]
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Uri-review mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review
>
> _______________________________________________
> Uri-review mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review

-- 
Graham Klyne
mailto:[e-mail]
http://www.ninebynine.org
Mastodon: @[e-mail]
GitHub/Skype: @gklyne