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

[Graham Klyne <[e-mail]>]

On 21/02/2013 21:07, Fredrik Ullner wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 7:13 PM, Eric Johnson<[e-mail]>  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 
permanent.

> I would like to invite people for discussion to the DC community. There is
> a development forum athttp://dcbase.org  as well as the development talk
> hub at adcs://hub.dcbase.org:16591 (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.

#g
--