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

st 10. 5. 2023 v 19:29 odesílatel Paul Frazee <pfrazee@gmail.com> napsal:

> The idea is indeed that at:// could user-facing in the same way http://
> is. The intent is to express a social address so that I could be at://
> pfrazee.com to provide a social identity and http://pfrazee.com to
> provide a website. We're hoping to make the scheme intuitive to people, as
> it has a clear connection to the "@pfrazee.com" convention.
>
> I can understand the hesitance around what we're proposing. It's a common
> word and assigning it to an early project is a big ask. I'd like to keep
> the scheme because I believe it's user-friendly, but I also don't want to
> push something that people aren't comfortable with.
>
> My question from here is, is there a way forward to address the concerns
> around this proposal, or do folks feel like this proposal is a non-starter?
> If there is a path forward, how can we help get there?
>

Potential Approach

I've noticed similarities between Webfinger, which aimed to return JSON
from a DNS-like identifier with an "@" symbol, and your current situation.
Webfinger eventually established the acct: URI scheme. However, in 2012,
Mark Nottingham suggested an alternative lookup method, such as
".well-known/webfinger?user=bob@host".

You might consider registering an "atprotocol" under .well-known and use
the following format: ".well-known/atprotocol?user=<atproto_identifier>".
If the dereferencing is handled by the BGS rather than individual hosts,
perhaps a simple lookup would suffice, eliminating the need for a new URI
scheme.

>
> Paul
>
> On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 10:54 AM Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org> wrote:
>
>> A small clarification to Eliot's comment: the *provisional* registry is
>> FCFS, but there is still a possibility for a hold-up come the time this is
>> advanced to a permanent registration.  The good news is that by raising
>> this here and now (rather than waiting for a permanent registration
>> review), there's a better chance that a consensus on this issue can emerge
>> before the protocol is very widely deployed.  So, thank you for doing that!
>>
>> #g
>>
>>
>> On 08/05/2023 09:18, Eliot Lear 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 listUri-review@ietf.orghttps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review
>>
>> --
>> Graham Klynemailto:gk@ninebynine.org <gk@ninebynine.org>http://www.ninebynine.org
>> Mastodon: @gklyne@indieweb.social
>> GitHub/Skype: @gklyne
>>
>> _______________________________________________
> Uri-review mailing list
> Uri-review@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review
>