[Uri-review] [IANA #1271079] Re: Registration of dhttp Schema name (uri-schemes)

[Amanda Baber via RT <[e-mail]>]

Hi Graham,

We've added the note below to the "dhttp" entry's "Notes" field:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/uri-schemes

Best regards,

Amanda Baber
IANA Operations Manager

On Wed May 24 12:45:08 2023, [e-mail] wrote:
> Hi Sabrina,
> 
> The public discussion on this appears to have run its, course, so I'd
> like to
> now request that the note below be added the the URI scheme registry
> entry for
> 'dhttp'.
> 
> Thank you,
> 
> Graham.
> 
> 
> ## IANA reviewer note
> 
> This scheme has been provisionally registered under the “first come
> first
> served” policy set out in RFC 7595.  This means that the scheme has
> not been
> formally reviewed in the IETF, and is not recommended by the IETF for
> general
> use on the open Internet.
> 
> Further, the `dhttp` scheme is considered harmful by some in the IETF
> [R1] for
> at least the following reasons:
> 
> 1. it creates confusion by associating with the existing "http" and
> "https"
> schemes of HTTP, even though the described protocol does not use HTTP.
> This
> could be an issue for applications that use the prefix "http://" and
> "https://"
> to identify links within text without parsing the surrounding context.
> 
> 2. ‘dhttp’ is defined to be an alias of the provisionally registered
> ‘web3’
> scheme, and URI aliases are, in general, considered harmful to the
> World Wide
> Web [R2].
> 
> 3. Using the name ‘dhttp’ appears to be an attempt to legitimise web3
> [R3] by
> association with HTTP (the current World Wide Web’s primary
> interaction protocol).
> 
> This note is intended to draw attention to potential problems that
> might arise
> if this scheme were to be used widely on the open Internet, and does
> not itself
> constitute a position by the IETF or IANA on the considerations
> raised.
> 
> [R1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/uri-
> review/4Sj8k6rLZzqZsGgMEe6fLM-wE4U/
> 
> [R2] https://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#uri-aliases
> 
> [R3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web3
> 
> 
> 
> On 28/04/2023 17:45, Sabrina Tanamal via RT wrote:
> > Hi Graham,
> >
> > Just following up on this thread. Are there any actions required from
> > IANA?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Sabrina Tanamal
> > Lead IANA Services Specialist
> >
> > On Thu Apr 20 10:34:36 2023, [e-mail] wrote:
> >> 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