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

Graham Klyne <> Fri, 22 February 2013 15:30 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C35B721F8E2E for <>; Fri, 22 Feb 2013 07:30:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.299
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9FNb7y7CxYXI for <>; Fri, 22 Feb 2013 07:30:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5BF421F8E50 for <>; Fri, 22 Feb 2013 07:30:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([]) by with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <>) id 1U8ua6-0004UZ-g0; Fri, 22 Feb 2013 15:30:38 +0000
Received: from ([] helo=conina.local) by with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <>) id 1U8ua5-0008Li-8s; Fri, 22 Feb 2013 15:30:37 +0000
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 14:57:39 +0000
From: Graham Klyne <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120907 Thunderbird/15.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Fredrik Ullner <>
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Oxford-Username: zool0635
Cc:, Bjoern Hoehrmann <>
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: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 15:30:44 -0000

On 21/02/2013 21:07, Fredrik Ullner wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 1:14 PM, Graham Klyne<>  wrote:
>> >
>> >(a) some clear indication that there is good consensus in the relevant
>> >developer community about what constitutes a suitable specification of the
>> >protocol (preferably with indications that implementations conforming to
>> >aid specification are interoperable, but I wouldn't see that as a must-have
>> >requirement here).
>> >
> I understand the concern, but I am unsure of the type of necessary explicit
> consensus here. There are multiple implementations that are interoperable -
> isn't that a de facto concensus? The protocol document does not specify
> what implementations support what, but I'm not sure if that'd be applicable
> in that type of document. (Another document perhaps that could be
> interesting.) It wouldn't be difficult to construct such an implementation
> matrix, it would simply require some time. (But obviously if that's
> necessary to be considered, then that is something that must be done.)

It's a hard question to answer definitively.

Mainly, I'd be looking for indications that this has been reviewed by some 
people who are aware of the problems that public protocols can run into.

The fact that there are multiple independent implementations is a *big* plus - 
possibly enough to go straight for permanent registration.  Is there any kind of 
interoperability discussion or similar conducted by the dchub developer 
community?  This is not something that should require additional work at this 
stage.  (I agree that it's not the protocol document's place to describe 
interoperable implementations.)

My questions came about because I hadn't heard of dchub protocol before, so I 
was casting about for some indication of how mature and widely used the 
protocol, is in practice.  In part, I was hoping my questions might prompt 
responses from other IETFers who might have greater knowledge of dchub.

In any case, I think there's plenty of material to support a provisional 
registration straight away.  The permanent registration is usually indicative of 
something that's closer to standard status (without necessarily being an actual 
standard).  My questions were an attempt to form a clearer view, in particular, 
how much developer community consensus is there behind the specification 
published on sourceforge?  And how much thought has been given to the security 
characteristics of the protocol?