Re: Request for well-known URI: ecips

Wei Tang <hi@that.world> Mon, 08 April 2019 01:36 UTC

Return-Path: <hi@that.world>
X-Original-To: wellknown-uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: wellknown-uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9E84120640 for <wellknown-uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 7 Apr 2019 18:36:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=that.world
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nt18n3PzlHMM for <wellknown-uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 7 Apr 2019 18:36:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hat.that.world (hat.that.world [IPv6:2a01:4f8:171:270b::2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 12B941203A2 for <wellknown-uri-review@ietf.org>; Sun, 7 Apr 2019 18:36:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nicethoughts (uniwide-pat-pool-129-94-8-3.gw.unsw.edu.au [129.94.8.3]) (Authenticated sender: sorpaas) by hat.that.world (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E04CD15F223E; Mon, 8 Apr 2019 01:36:32 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=that.world; s=mail; t=1554687394; bh=7c1uRA/QKdV7vaPDDUXeQ069JlDFCdrY4y7CI5u5hI4=; h=References:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-reply-to:Date; b=UhoytBU2dKEwZxa9YsxwkB4uiUlRW2LUPHSZ+ES3uKEU4DgsxcDrRaevew14OihjR gzrtIinji9vQa+/W+vcxZxIi4iPtkZGAjUXimaNxyOZR+sejwmOL9VGoOCortgvXWu q9oZwICf1NhC6wym66M3ltksSPtE1VLWrIB+SNqA=
References: <87y35qxyur.fsf@that.world> <D55EBEF4-3EF5-41DB-BBD3-A6FDD6DC09B0@mnot.net>
User-agent: mu4e 1.0; emacs 26.1
From: Wei Tang <hi@that.world>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: wellknown-uri-review@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Request for well-known URI: ecips
In-reply-to: <D55EBEF4-3EF5-41DB-BBD3-A6FDD6DC09B0@mnot.net>
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2019 03:36:29 +0200
Message-ID: <87d0lxs2g2.fsf@that.world>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/wellknown-uri-review/NLGsuMZIuuw1f2FLWZsVPkutkuI>
X-BeenThere: wellknown-uri-review@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Well-Known URI review list <wellknown-uri-review.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/wellknown-uri-review>, <mailto:wellknown-uri-review-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/wellknown-uri-review/>
List-Post: <mailto:wellknown-uri-review@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:wellknown-uri-review-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/wellknown-uri-review>, <mailto:wellknown-uri-review-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2019 01:36:48 -0000

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 https://github.com/tzdybal/hunter-gatherer)
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 “example.com-metadata”, 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 <hi@that.world>; 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 <hi@that.world>;
>> * Specification document(s): https://ecips.that.world/24-ECIPURI
>>
>> -- Wei
>>
>>