Re: [Uri-review] URI scheme registration request - dchub

Fredrik Ullner <> Sat, 09 March 2013 18:20 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC81B21F8457; Sat, 9 Mar 2013 10:20:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Vl3xlJ8anPLV; Sat, 9 Mar 2013 10:20:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::233]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63F9121F8454; Sat, 9 Mar 2013 10:20:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id k11so3311833iea.10 for <multiple recipients>; Sat, 09 Mar 2013 10:20:20 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=cCtkTa2PVw8IZRjgVOH4JHk0PRPc1q3eL0d/rp4UNz4=; b=yUTtWDQOjsm+vtNunKep7M1oYFKcXsF7/cOlQIGzOWIEnNOVZ5xV60dmNP025hDjgM u4kV8wOtapzff5BnkerXTA0GqQzq9v+8HXaoVrThdPl31KNRSk4WI0LQiN6h8qZWKbN6 7Wb6w1fCd32rk6GdUHKnJYQXxsAqhvipfZS5dOGeGVNfz1O3ehqPxrt8Hg5by9Dhm1K3 Gh0QNP/EkbR5cg5NoWKsS3tiLhvF9VfxzhljCq4thQxNlxTFCPCxt06714RPWgsCe/M9 v7nIzZdsPJU/TObGgRWnBmgvrnmbJYrzWoYQYJLClEFX+ltAe76MJDT6P7Hvcz5inuSt IeKg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id in9mr2062951igc.47.1362853220022; Sat, 09 Mar 2013 10:20:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with HTTP; Sat, 9 Mar 2013 10:20:19 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2013 19:20:19 +0100
Message-ID: <>
From: Fredrik Ullner <>
To: Graham Klyne <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=14dae934070d0f83b004d781fe09
Cc:, "" <>
Subject: Re: [Uri-review] URI scheme registration request - dchub
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proposed URI Schemes <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 09 Mar 2013 18:20:22 -0000


A new version of the NMDC document is now available at <>gt;. Note that the
versioning is the document's version, not the protocol, of which hasn't
changed in quite some time. There is also a new version of the URI scheme
available at <>.

The new URI scheme document;
* All sections are updated to be more explicit and each section should be
more focused compared to before.
* The security concerns are addressed. Note that the NMDC document
addresses some security items that are general for the protocol, hence the
* The document should use more references to other RFCs (notably 3986) and
use phrasing such as "SHOULD" and "MUST" to follow the 'RFC text standard'.
* The document should address many items that have been noted (see e.g.
Eric's mail).
* References to what some implementations support.
* Added a 'nmdcs' part to the document; I don't know if this is appropriate
for the document, though. (nmdcs is the TLS equivalent of the dchub URI.)
There's relatively low implementation support for it, but it can easily be
removed if it's deemed not widespread enough.

I am sure you all can understand that we want to push for a permanent URI
scheme. :)  If anything, it improves our own documentation and forces us to
consider things that may be obvious for the active development community
but not for an 'outsider'.

On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 4:13 PM, Graham Klyne <> wrote:

> I took a quick look.  It appears to be a vibrant developer community
> there, but I got a bit lost looking, e.g., for possible clues about
> interoperability of different implementations.
I can understand the concern for interoperability (see the new URI for
some). I don't currently have information on "x implementation support y
command" etc, but I'm sure we could compile such a list. I am unsure where
this information should be stored, but that's probably more of a concern
for me than you.

On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 4:13 PM, Graham Klyne <> wrote:
> The adcs: reference wasn't useful to me, as my browser doesn't know what
> to do with it - this is a perennial problem with new URI schemes, and is
> one reason why there is some reluctance to allow new permanent schemes -
> it's extremely difficult and expensive to get new schemes widely deployed.
Ah, yeah, that's why I hinted at downloading the most widely used clients.
(The client is Windows only, but there's e.g. Jucy <> that
is Java so it should work if you're on a different OS.) I should note that
there's not necessarily more implementation support for dchub than for
adcs, there's just more links for the former. It's also why I asked about a
potential IRC channel, since I know it's may be more widely known.

Note that our estimates show that there's many thousands of users daily on
DC, all of which has a client capable of. See <> for some
rudimentary stats for the client DC++ (note the post's comment).

(By the way, I apologize for not responding sooner. We've had discussions
and I didn't want to post anything until we had something more substantial.)

Fredrik Ullner