Re: [Uri-review] Two new URI schemes for review

[Ted Hardie <[e-mail]>]

Hi Eric,

I had some similar questions about this, but I believe this text in Section 3:

      The optional authority component may assist
      applications in accessing the object named by an ni URI.

provides the explanation.  They are using the hierarchical portion to indicate
where you might access the object named by the non-hierarchical portion.

While this is probably okay, it suffers a bit from the lack of an
access method being indicated within the URI.  The provided method
(using .well-known and HTTP) could have been made extensible by
shifting the access method into a parameter.

Note that this is not an objection to the URI scheme going forward on
my part; it's a style preference for how to manage extensibility.

regards,

Ted



On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 2:22 AM, Eric Johnson <[e-mail]> wrote:
> I looked at this proposal, and had three points of confusion.
>
> a) Why is this being done as a "hierarchical" URI scheme, when the URI is
> not, in fact, hierarchical?
>
> That is, why ni://example.com/....?
>
> When implementations that manipulate URIs encounter the :// after the
> scheme, that should be a signal for them to associate meaning to "relative"
> URIs, as in:
>
> base URI:
> ni://example.com/sha-256;f4OxZX_x_FO5LcGBSKHWXfwtSx-j1ncoSt3SABJtkGk
>
> ... what does it mean to do "index.html" relative to said URI?
>
> Can I compute a "sha-512" relative to the given URI? (Answer: no)
>
> I conclude that this should not be a hierarchical scheme.
>
> b) Why isn't this just a URN with a particular namespace identifier?
>
> As in:
>
> urn:nhi:example.com:sha-256:f4OxZX_x_FO5LcGBSKHWXfwtSx-j1ncoSt3SABJtkGk
>
> (where nhi I just made up, but stands for "named hashed id", because URNs
> require at least three letters for namespace ids)
>
> That seems like a better fit.
>
> c) Since there are more known SHA standards, why not declare them all in
> this initial proposal, so that sha-384, and sha-512 are already defined?
>
> -Eric.
>
>
> On 4/30/12 5:56 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> We have a draft [1] that requests two new URI schemes.
>>
>> The core WG are likely to want to use these we think
>> and possibly decade, but they're intended to be generally
>> useful as well.
>>
>> Barry Leiba is planning to AD sponsor this and Alexey
>> Melnikov will be shepherding so if you can cc them ase
>> well as the authors on any questions or comments that'd
>> be good.
>>
>> I hope the plan is to IETF LC this soon, once this
>> review and the .well-known registration review are
>> done.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Stephen.
>>
>> [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-farrell-decade-ni-05
>> _______________________________________________
>> Uri-review mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review
>
> _______________________________________________
> Uri-review mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review