[Uri-review] [IANA #1271079] Re: Registration of dhttp Schema name (uri-schemes)

[Sabrina Tanamal via RT <[e-mail]>]

Hi Graham, 

Just following up on this thread. Are there any actions required from IANA? 

Thanks,

Sabrina Tanamal
Lead IANA Services Specialist

On Thu Apr 20 10:34:36 2023, [e-mail] wrote:
> I see two possible ways forward:
> 
> 1. There is an "escape hatch" clause in the registration procedure
> that allows
> the IESG to be final arbiter of any contentious registration.
> 
> 2. As scheme reviewer, I can request a note be added to the registry
> entry
> pointing out that the scheme is contentious, the reasons why, and as
> such is NOT
> RECOMMENDED for use on the open Internet.  I would be reluctant to do
> so on my
> opinion alone, but I'm seeing sufficient concern expressed here for
> that to be a
> reasonable request.
> 
> Personally, I think the latter is preferable, for reasons that Ted
> mentions in a
> later email.  There are a number of provisionally registered schemes
> that got
> snuck in un-noticed before we set up the process of sending
> notifications of
> provisional registrations to this list (following the last London IETF
> meeting),
> and I'd be inclined to request a similar note be added to the 'web3'
> scheme.
> 
> #g
> 
> 
> On 19/04/2023 10:18, Ted Hardie wrote:
> > Hi Roy,
> >
> > The current list of requirements for provisionals is in RFC 7595,
> > Section 4:
> >
> > The scheme name must meet the syntactic requirements ofSection 3.8.
> >
> >    o  There must not already be an entry with the same scheme name. 
> > In
> >       the unfortunate case that there are multiple, different uses of
> >       the same scheme name, the Designated Expert can approve a
> > request
> >       to modify an existing entry to note the separate use.
> >
> >    o  Contact information identifying the person supplying the
> >       registration must be included.  Previously unregistered schemes
> >       discovered in use can be registered by third parties (even if
> > not
> >       on behalf of those who created the scheme).  In this case, both
> >       the registering party and the scheme creator SHOULD be
> > identified.
> >
> >    o  If no permanent, citable specification for the scheme
> > definition
> >       is included, credible reasons for not providing it SHOULD be
> >       given.
> >
> >    o  The scheme definition SHOULD include clear security
> > considerations
> >       (Section 3.7) or explain why a full security analysis is not
> >       available (e.g., in a third-party scheme registration).
> >
> >    o  If the scheme definition does not meet the guidelines laid out
> > in
> >       Section 3, the differences and reasons SHOULD be noted.
> >
> > While it may be the case that using 'dhttp' implies something to
> > humans about
> > the relationship toother schemes, it meets the current test that
> > "there must
> > not already be an entry with the same scheme name".  As you will no
> > doubt
> > recall, we loosened the registration of provisionals in this way
> > because folks
> > were minting URI schemes without registration and the risk of
> > collision was
> > getting worse as a result.
> >
> > I am not as clear, though, about whether this registration is
> > intended to
> > deprecate web3 (which is also a provisionally registered URI scheme)
> > so that
> > web3 could be marked historic.  If that is the case, we could at
> > least
> > eliminate the alias scheme issue which you note below.
> >
> > Just my personal opinion, of course,
> >
> > Ted
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 18, 2023 at 4:45 PM Roy T. Fielding <[e-mail]>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Is there a way that we can block provisional registrations that are
> > > actively
> > harmful?
> > >
> > >   1) this is abusing the existing http and https schemes;
> > >   2) alias schemes are harmful, in general; and,
> > >   3) web3 is a scam that we shouldn't make respectable by
> > > association with HTTP.
> > >
> > > .....Roy
> > >
> > >
> > > > On Apr 17, 2023, at 4:14 PM, Sabrina Tanamal via RT
> > <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Qi,
> > > >
> > > > We've added provisional URI scheme dhttp to the registry:
> > > >
> > > > https://www.iana.org/assignments/uri-schemes/prov/dhttp
> > > >
> > > > Registry: https://www.iana.org/assignments/uri-schemes
> > > >
> > > > Per the designated expert for URI Schemes registry, we're also
> > > > notifying
> > the [e-mail] mailing list upon completing a provisional
> > registration.
> > > >
> > > > Best regards,
> > > >
> > > > Sabrina Tanamal
> > > > Lead IANA Services Specialist
> > > >
> > > > On Mon Apr 17 03:05:35 2023, [e-mail] wrote:
> > > >> Hi Amanda,
> > > >>
> > > >> We would like to register dhttp:// schema with the following
> > > >> information
> > > >>
> > > >> Schema name: dhttp
> > > >>
> > > >> Status: Provisional
> > > >>
> > > >> Applications/protocols that use this scheme:
> > > >>
> > > >> This schema dhttp:// is the alias of schema web3://
> > > >>
> > > >> Contact:
> > > >>
> > > >> Qi Zhou
> > > >> 55 E 3rd Ave, San Mateo, CA 94401
> > > >> mailto: [e-mail]
> > > >>
> > > >> Change controller:
> > > >>
> > > >> Qi Zhou
> > > >> 55 E 3rd Ave, San Mateo, CA 94401
> > > >> mailto: [e-mail]
> > > >>
> > > >> References:
> > > >>
> > > >> A draft specification can be found at
> > > >> https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-4804 (replacing web3:// with
> > > >> dhttp://)
> > > >>
> > > >> Scheme syntax:
> > > >>
> > > >> "dhttp://" [userinfo "@"] contractName [":" chainid] path ["?"
> > > >> query]
> > > >>
> > > >> Thanks!
> > > >>
> > > >> Best regards,
> > > >>
> > > >> - Qi
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > 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
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Uri-review mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review