request for a new URL scheme
"John C. Daub" <hsoi@tamu.edu> Wed, 10 April 1996 18:30 UTC
Received: from ietf.cnri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa24043;
10 Apr 96 14:30 EDT
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa24039;
10 Apr 96 14:30 EDT
Received: from services.Bunyip.COM by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa13040;
10 Apr 96 14:30 EDT
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by services.bunyip.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id
MAA21006 for uri-out; Wed, 10 Apr 1996 12:51:27 -0400
Received: from mocha.bunyip.com (mocha.Bunyip.Com [192.197.208.1]) by
services.bunyip.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) with SMTP id MAA21001 for
<uri@services.bunyip.com>; Wed, 10 Apr 1996 12:51:20 -0400
Received: from MAIL.TAMU.EDU by mocha.bunyip.com with SMTP
(5.65a/IDA-1.4.2b/CC-Guru-2b)
id AA24406 (mail destined for uri@services.bunyip.com);
Wed, 10 Apr 96 12:51:17 -0400
Received: from 165.91.115.4 (scom-server.tamu.edu [165.91.115.4]) by
mail.tamu.edu (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id LAA08038;
Wed, 10 Apr 1996 11:51:06 -0500 (CDT)
Message-Id: <316BE712.5DAA@tamu.edu>
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 11:51:30 -0500
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: "John C. Daub" <hsoi@tamu.edu>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Macintosh; I; PPC)
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: uri@bunyip.com
Cc: hsoi@tamu.edu
Subject: request for a new URL scheme
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Orig-Sender: owner-uri@bunyip.com
Precedence: bulk
Hello! I would like to request a new scheme for the URL format. I know that this is not the proper address to email such things to, but after reading rfc-1738, there was no email address given for IANA, so I figured the only given email address could help me out :) What I would like to do is propose a new scheme to handle Internet MUDs (Multi-User Dungeons/Dimensions). Let me go through section 4 of rfc-1738. "A new scheme may be introduced by defining a mapping onto a conforming URL syntax" that would be quite simple to do. To connect to Internet MUDs, it really follows the same format at the telnet scheme (I'll elaborate on the differences later). a new scheme specifier of "mud" would really be the only thing necessary to do. e.g.: mud://some.mud.com:4000/ "URL schemes must have deomstrable utility and operability" tho some people will always say that MUDs are a waste of time, a waste of resources, or whatever, they are growing in popularity and utility. This growth is due to the overall growth of the Internet in general. I maintain a web site about Macintosh MUDding Resources <http://http.tamu.edu:8000/~jcd7106/netscape/mud/macmudrsrc.html> I receive a lot of email from people about all sorts of things, from questions about clients, to using a mud server as a setting for a "virtual classroom". I think due to this fact (both their growth and popularity not only as a recreational tool but also a place for commerce, learning, or whatever), there should be a URL scheme specifically for MUDs. Many people use client programs to connect to MUDs. as it lies now, most people (in setting their Internet "helper apps") just substitute their MUD client for the telnet helper. That could be fine, but what if someone wanted to use a telnet program for telnetting and a mud program for mudding? Hence, I feel there is a need for a mud URL scheme. The mud URL scheme would be quite similar to the current telnet scheme. The mud URL scheme would be used to designate interactive services to MUDs that can be accessed by the Telnet protocal. A mud URL would take the form: mud://<host>:<port>/ (unlike the telnet scheme, a user and password should not be necessary. however, it might prove useful in some cases, and I do belive that in reviewing this request, the subject of having user and password should be put up for discussion and debate). as specified in Section 3.1 of rfc-1738. The final "/" may be ommited. if :<port> is omittted, it would be hard to decide where the port should default to since MUDs vary in their choice of port (but at least over 1234, and most never go below 2000). If the port was omitted, it could default to the telnet port of 23, or perhaps a common mud port like 4000, or even just throw and error letting the user know the URL is incomplete. If the password and user portions are determined to have utility and should be included in the scheme, they should be made optional. This URL would not designate a data object, but rather an interactive service. Remove interactive services vary widely in the means by which they allow remote logins; in practice, the <user> and <password> supplied are advisory only: clients accessing a mud URL merely advise the user of the suggested username and password. But it might be desired to actually use these in the mud scheme (as opposed to the telnet scheme). perhaps it could be handy for mud clients and servers for say a "guest" or "anonymous" login. My personal feelings would be to have the mud URL scheme stick as close to the telnet scheme as possible. there really is no difference since connecting to a mud is just a telnet. the large bonus this would add would be facility for users in configuring their internet client programs and helper applicaations for "seemless" surfing and less headaches. Plus, I would like to believe in the future that the use of MUDs would grow, not only recreationally, but also in terms of other "more productive" things such as using them for interactive virtual classrooms, for virutal shopping malls or help desks, etc. And to have this URL scheme could facilite the growth of MUDs in all of these areas allowing for specialized MUD clients to be utilized as seemlessly as anything else. Thank you very much. I hope to hear from someone soon about the ability to impliment this scheme. John C. Daub (aka Hsoi) | <mailto:hsoi@tamu.edu> Grad Student, Lab Manager | <http://http.tamu.edu:8000/~jcd7106/> Self-proclaimed Mac Guru | Department of Speech Communication Will program for food. | Texas A&M University, USA
- request for a new URL scheme John C. Daub
- Re: request for a new URL scheme Rich Salz
- Deployment of new URI schemes (was Re: request fo… Daniel LaLiberte
- Re: request for a new URL scheme Reed Wade
- Re: request for a new URL scheme John C. Daub
- Re: request for a new URL scheme John C. Daub
- Re: request for a new URL scheme Larry Masinter
- Re: request for a new URL scheme Larry Masinter
- Re: Deployment of new URI schemes (was Re: reques… ZB Lucas