Re: Request for well-known URI: ecips

Mark Nottingham <> Mon, 08 April 2019 01:39 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D73341201C9 for <>; Sun, 7 Apr 2019 18:39:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.701
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.701 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.b=imPN+JHb; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.b=pTNWIaOJ
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id W4yGgdsQfArb for <>; Sun, 7 Apr 2019 18:39:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 74AF012017E for <>; Sun, 7 Apr 2019 18:39:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.internal []) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 622942234B; Sun, 7 Apr 2019 21:39:55 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailfrontend1 ([]) by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Sun, 07 Apr 2019 21:39:55 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; h= content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; s=fm2; bh=8 m5flcX8G7iof5A1aD4DpXqZ0W3lgUtNCrdEFKmTaHY=; b=imPN+JHbwC2tLMnRt MgDuFR5h0Wzi/csiCe6Wa68MrU7z1uB4nP5dzqG1Lv8EWMhhiUnYYd1L5hk8VVwL JUuDTVTSF10BifoVyaLbruX6+Ove6QyTZiiKcCxRDjg8WnRdlTPiyPR+Y9Mnqzww 4+SdXxIHikbJn8CRbwgFrlScgsWeH4S4JzRzxGmgRGr9xmzlmp46gAlLC3EHkPWH 0on9mr8dTDS1ZZas+oE393pWAI3rkjQWmzDR9X24suYdbE44gaT+BwCP+ZzZU3OW vdi5c8XEIc1prxe0mg1c0Wht0ubgzYnHPwjaUXr0AUr0neLNnVVkO9yIyRoxb0bO ZDWVg==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=8m5flcX8G7iof5A1aD4DpXqZ0W3lgUtNCrdEFKmTa HY=; b=pTNWIaOJPevprDmaV7ucam1rLCETGdDM9iQRr0Ln/jmeQhSfKYhZdzSXf 8rMMC9cQ0WZ6xRX9V2+lrOm+dLhPPp1GVocZwDxd5WMWQLqMuuvPb3KOQD4DPvUv 4s0aQR+iv3T7Dn/qWuHgf0MvsEnGTKV+WauQPXP5wtGJ/s9iuJAp4dp+Ip/e8rc0 AmyOAHSomOBqJWkFnLDIg6IqugBdFlKOxEozoVyR2IUwE4Vi7mU8KpQTWnDR5GHF FdvW2JAeYlx3wbhbhJZ8cAIXwlkrYF/PRKF87/GJxaKI10xIIymBSj+IPB8DXhcM mo+5y7/t+rts3nC7FkhRkVSsOuLug==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:aaaqXO0xvl_Q7v94UkIh9t7RGtYhTCeZUibvnbq1TCjFfrt75pJcXQ>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduuddruddvgdegleculddtuddrgedutddrtddtmd cutefuodetggdotefrodftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdp uffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecunecujfgurheptggguf fhjgffgffkfhfvofesthhqmhdthhdtjeenucfhrhhomhepofgrrhhkucfpohhtthhinhhg hhgrmhcuoehmnhhothesmhhnohhtrdhnvghtqeenucffohhmrghinhepghhithhhuhgsrd gtohhmpdhmnhhothdrnhgvthdpvgigrghmphhlvgdrtghomhdpthhhrghtrdifohhrlhgu necukfhppedugeegrddufeeirddujeehrddvkeenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomh epmhhnohhtsehmnhhothdrnhgvthenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedt
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:aaaqXMBOgsBw8N9yG0YczdfMGUU47BIVdv9R0o1oGikbhFyN6OxbVg> <xmx:aaaqXF5-RDHb9SrfRtg3AyfLTsUoB-FxW-ZH15OqcGhoDkjLByfPZQ> <xmx:aaaqXFJGKIV0bAOdFfa6M6dI8dEM3ZeQhaX6PK4ZAA63PZr5uXl5Zw> <xmx:a6aqXM3cENapxJDdMoP6ws-szTtEkilcTKSZJywFKIllw0Ts_8BdmQ>
Received: from (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 40AAAE4482; Sun, 7 Apr 2019 21:39:51 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.2 \(3445.102.3\))
Subject: Re: Request for well-known URI: ecips
From: Mark Nottingham <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2019 11:39:49 +1000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <>
To: Wei Tang <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.102.3)
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Well-Known URI review list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2019 01:39:59 -0000

Hi Wei,

I agree that it's unlikely to be used as a generic term, and since you have some deployment let's stick with ecips (we'd probably be having a different discussion if you were requesting a three- or four-character string).


Please register the request template below in the Well-Known URIs registry.


> On 8 Apr 2019, at 11:36 am, Wei Tang <> wrote:
> Hi Mark,
> I want to argue that the name "ecips" is precise enough. The new
> RFC5785bis really didn't say anything about requested names cannot be
> too short.
>> Registered names for a specific application SHOULD be correspondingly
>> precise; “squatting” on generic terms is not encouraged.
> I do hope we can use the name "ecips" as is because there're already
> aggregators (like this
> written based on it. However, if you think this is really not okay, I'm
> open to consider changing it.
> -- Wei
> Mark Nottingham writes:
>> Hello Wei,
>> Apologies for the delay; I was waiting for RFC5785 to be approved before moving forward on some registrations.
>> From RFC5785bis:
>>> Registered names for a specific application SHOULD be correspondingly precise; “squatting” on generic terms is not encouraged. For example, if the Example application wants a well-known location for metadata, an appropriate registered name might be “example-metadata” or even “”, not “metadata”.
>> Your requested name is not a common word, but it is a bit short. Would you consider using a longer name (e.g., "ethereum-classic-ip") to assure that it's specific enough?
>> Regards,
>>> On 8 Mar 2019, at 6:34 am, Wei Tang <> wrote:
>>> Signed PGP part
>>> Hi all,
>>> We're working on a solution to make a specification repository (called
>>> Ethereum Classic Improvement Proposals) more decentralized, as this is
>>> one of the thing that is often requested by our community. Our current
>>> draft is based on federation -- basically by allowing an aggregator to
>>> build up a list of repositories, and then fetch specification
>>> information from a well known URI. We didn't use solutions like
>>> ActivityPub because upgrading to it from the current structure is
>>> complicated, and we don't need the majority of its features.
>>> We need the well known URI both because we need to attest the
>>> "authoritiveness" of the specification (it needs to have a single source
>>> of truth in one particular repository), and also because for an
>>> aggregator, fetching a repository with thousands of specifications by
>>> individual URI would be too inefficient.
>>> * URI suffix: ecips
>>> * Change controller: Wei Tang <>
>>> * Specification document(s):
>>> -- Wei

Mark Nottingham