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 A97B121F8E53; Fri, 22 Feb 2013 07:30:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.449
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.149, BAYES_00=-2.599, WEIRD_PORT=0.001]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DpK1k4QnlPHj; Fri, 22 Feb 2013 07:30:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC1E921F8E2E; Fri, 22 Feb 2013 07:30:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([]) by with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <>) id 1U8ua7-0005Hc-pr; Fri, 22 Feb 2013 15:30:39 +0000
Received: from ([] helo=conina.local) by with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <>) id 1U8ua6-0008Lp-9C; Fri, 22 Feb 2013 15:30:39 +0000
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 15:13:20 +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 7:13 PM, Eric Johnson<>  wrote:
>> >
>> >The protocol itself ought to be filed as an RFC. That would pretty much
>> >guarantee permanence of the reference.

> It has actually been discussed previously. I have a semi-complete document
> written, but it's far from complete. I am also unsure of how one would
> manage messages that are now not used by any implementation. If people
> would feel that that would be the best approach, then I'm all for it.

"Ought to be" maybe too strong, but if dchub is widely used and supported that's 
an option to consider.  But if you go down that route, be aware that in can be a 
lot of work preparing and herding a spec through full IETF review.  As Eric 
says, that would almost certainly justify making the URI scheme registration 

> I would like to invite people for discussion to the DC community. There is
> a development forum at  as well as the development talk
> hub at adcs:// (note that this is another URI scheme
> that is intended to be registered in the future). (Download the application
> DC++, press Ctrl+Q and enter the adcs:// address to join.) Is there perhaps
> an IRC channel otherwise where one can discuss these things?

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.

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.