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

DataPacRat <datapacrat@gmail.com> Fri, 28 June 2013 02:17 UTC

Return-Path: <datapacrat@gmail.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 243BF11E8166 for <uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Jun 2013 19:17:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.399, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
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 zxkmGIt2xY77 for <uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Jun 2013 19:17:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-we0-x231.google.com (mail-we0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c03::231]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B36F11E8161 for <uri-review@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Jun 2013 19:17:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-we0-f177.google.com with SMTP id m19so1099726wev.36 for <uri-review@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Jun 2013 19:17:08 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=52K4VM+mHo/rYPadl6TdIzN3V+jEwerG4rPpwq2/yE0=; b=KkTuhwwGRKHR5HFj5ENgdF8XRSN6a9AZBJswKKFXsp9xFTCsNryMyu3J5fV3CQetI4 Uq8SFW1l0VThAIkthciE3wka32+Xsz7f1pO9wudWHZxtUgDoR9Lmjb78BYyok6VPyi+N YW2mZuVhRI8zO+r+UQUv8dWfTopoQ9prXr0yjQjtpZZYdHxBzyA+smBz1Kq0TNtGSqRy fAC4kAdG6bkPPOK0xF5JMmriy7aWQkMyVd4iWfy1GYIcYDWkczZl5YcyNOQZW0HVtP1i AO3klZHDTtiq9i/5P1eqCPNwdUh/My5wo48PgXSkZJD+v412C89qHCJtqH/NvZnZAqda GLZg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.47.167 with SMTP id e7mr8186874wjn.57.1372385828512; Thu, 27 Jun 2013 19:17:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.194.243.193 with HTTP; Thu, 27 Jun 2013 19:17:08 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <51CCB402.3060909@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>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 22:17:08 -0400
Message-ID: <CAB5WduCEO9RFE0YT_3mj9NLRj3fj=SapfRvMnvLPMbU3hBZpsQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: DataPacRat <datapacrat@gmail.com>
To: Eric Johnson <eric@tibco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b86e5f0cdac6004e02d7975
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 02:17:10 -0000

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-derivedformat 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