Re: [Uri-review] [IANA #1270959] Registration of dhttp Schema name (uri-schemes)

[Graham Klyne <[e-mail]>]

Roy, thanks for your comments.

Here is a revised note with your improvements (but not using the word 
"deliberately").

#g


[[

## 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 10/05/2023 17:38, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>> On May 10, 2023, at 8:40 AM, Graham Klyne <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> (IANA cc'ed, but no action requested at this time.)
>>
>>
>> I've drafted a possible note for addition to the provisional registration 
>> template for 'dhttp' [1]
>>
>> [1] https://www.iana.org/assignments/uri-schemes/prov/dhttp
>>
>> The intent is not to make a definitive statement about the goodness or 
>> badness of the scheme, but simply to act as a health warning of potential 
>> issues, and to highlight that its publication is NOT a recommendation for its 
>> use by the IETF.  Does this look reasonable?
>>
>
> Yes, but I think it could be a little less reasonable in parts where there is 
> no doubt,
> nor any need to be shy.
>
>> Proposed note follows.
>>
>>
>> #g
>>
>>
>> ## 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 around the existing HTTP and HTTPS schemes.
>>
> 1. it deliberately associates 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].
>>
> good
>>
>> 3. the activity known as “web3” [R3] has attracted much criticism, and is 
>> considered by some to be an attempt to insinuate controversial blockchain 
>> technology into the fabric of the World Wide Web.  Using the name ‘dhttp’ 
>> appears to be an attempt to legitimise web3 by association with HTTP (the 
>> current World Wide Web’s primary interaction protocol).
>>
>
> I would just use the second sentence. The first is a bit weird -- the scam is 
> not the technology's fault.
>
>>
>> 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
>>
>> ]]
>>
>
> +1, with or without my suggested changes above.
>
> ....Roy

-- 
Graham Klyne
mailto:[e-mail]
http://www.ninebynine.org
Mastodon: @[e-mail]
GitHub/Skype: @gklyne