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

Eric Johnson <eric@tibco.com> Fri, 28 June 2013 05:48 UTC

Return-Path: <eric@tibco.com>
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 A936021F9F53 for <uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Jun 2013 22:48:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 uVfjvmnJ3-8H for <uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Jun 2013 22:48:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx2-app.tibco.com (mx2-app.tibco.com [63.100.100.143]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BED3721F9EE6 for <uri-review@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Jun 2013 22:48:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,956,1363158000"; d="scan'208";a="70545943"
Received: from tibco-5.tibco.com (HELO PA-CASHUB01.na.tibco.com) ([63.100.100.5]) by mx2-app.tibco.com with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 27 Jun 2013 22:48:33 -0700
Received: from PA-MBX04.na.tibco.com ([fe80::6418:8781:cd80:4038]) by PA-CASHUB01.na.tibco.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.02.0342.003; Thu, 27 Jun 2013 22:48:33 -0700
From: Eric Johnson <eric@tibco.com>
To: DataPacRat <datapacrat@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: Initial inquiry into URI proposal (nym)
Thread-Index: AQHOc6WZaZVZeIVQw0aQIA7hGpgVFplKnvTB
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 05:48:32 +0000
Message-ID: <9C772982-154C-42F7-B4B8-99672DC57947@tibco.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> <B550B44BF8AF314BB00C4E2AC1C180881AC175E9@Rock-Exchange1.microfocus.com> <CAB5WduDFKJkkBc=ZdACW8s1kMA=EsWRtxUPASEBj23_01r33Kw@mail.gmail.com> <51CCB402.3060909@tibco.com>, <CAB5WduCEO9RFE0YT_3mj9NLRj3fj=SapfRvMnvLPMbU3hBZpsQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAB5WduCEO9RFE0YT_3mj9NLRj3fj=SapfRvMnvLPMbU3hBZpsQ@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "uri-review@ietf.org" <uri-review@ietf.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: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 05:48:41 -0000

Kudos to you for continuing to poke at the problem and fumble around.

Good luck. Sorry, I don't have answers to your questions below.

Eric

On Jun 27, 2013, at 7:17 PM, "DataPacRat" <datapacrat@gmail.com>; wrote:

> After some reflection, I think that I might be able to accomplish my goals by making four changes to the existing vCard standard - two so trivial they can be implemented immediately with X-type experimental fields, one likely so, and one that was giving me fits before I finally thought of an obvious alternate approach. (In case you're wondering: adding Authority and Confidence tags; adding date/time/period fields to any given tag; and adding an in-line cryptographic hash authenticating the whole shebang.) And if vCard itself can't be upgraded for this, I can base a new, vCard-derived format on all of the above.
> 
> If anybody here can recommend an appropriate mailing list or (set of) individual(s) I can contact, so that I can get some further feedback as I try working through IETF's standardization process, then I will do my best to graciously allow this list to return to its usual discussions on URIs.
> 
> I would like to thank everyone who put up with my naive fumblings here, and especially thank those of you who gave me enough constructive criticism to help me realize some of my fundamental errors.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Thank you for your time,
> -- 
> DataPacRat