Re: Request for well-known URI: ecips

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Mon, 08 April 2019 00:57 UTC

Return-Path: <mnot@mnot.net>
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 CBD43120283 for <wellknown-uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 7 Apr 2019 17:57:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.701
X-Spam-Level:
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: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mnot.net header.b=p9mifhC5; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=GgAUeAit
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 aT3zdaREmVwF for <wellknown-uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 7 Apr 2019 17:57:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com (out4-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.28]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D902412011A for <wellknown-uri-review@ietf.org>; Sun, 7 Apr 2019 17:57:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.internal [10.202.2.43]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22D77221BD; Sun, 7 Apr 2019 20:57:57 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Sun, 07 Apr 2019 20:57:57 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mnot.net; h= content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; s=fm2; bh=B 0CKi8I3Xksr1/wlOA3Ecb2OCnxH6He01+LbCvVwmXY=; b=p9mifhC5+EgRxaBOF em8I+isjKMXeOU9Ctdb48dHq71OvGeGdXaakCg/VhkIlmYGvQSzFdU9LmOiZm5sU CXOFJFB3HvBGLSq8QblGWKrjyEEwEZ+eJwIN8AAycff6k8MRfnMeLo+TqqCNQZTP /DL+pcSXcidlWxDtlSoL06ZsPWj0Qn9us2saJZcvsViOV6MDIOLSEPxhT+t3lF5M SseLhTyylTSuAxtVvKtXTvc9N/FXiczOBbmm7BEj7FFk72sICXr0HzhhK7RxZsrX /N/cb+QBHqwAvmpxQgrPkGlnL6k1tU99altsj2HCFzfMb6cU56Y4rJVtWjpUJUpD 4WedQ==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; 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=B0CKi8I3Xksr1/wlOA3Ecb2OCnxH6He01+LbCvVwm XY=; b=GgAUeAit30Oz0rEX7nE/7J//j14WynCnyy74IaX0Tut7DFnddohtPm+rC rDFgg5HFAR6Vi+Bei9nXs/JWFTGhZaICoCDfI6ZLNthC56kN8oC8CnSxSyyME9DA LIa3PNTpms156iACL/7Bd2q/gjrOprsaoMqtSvxq8UPc73b7Dp8B+YbevOTNWO8n RKkCmGRZTuaIdQxzbqK0SbJpmahrt+sluFiPkMbhtcAHeHovXJwr5/OVeLGbMQCT 2pLBMTKpvu14NpaFuTSLXarO2Zbl0Zf2ttkkDkCjNOpadMzK61Y+6V6XmcuUGiSa WHUUQ3gXO0B5WxdbAT1v3itLbGLNA==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:k5yqXFikFUslNnP2khK2bLO6Qs3CGRhsVNtu6VTx_lzhWXv0zFTa8A>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduuddruddvgdegudculddtuddrgedutddrtddtmd cutefuodetggdotefrodftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdp uffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecunecujfgurheptggguf fhjgffgffkfhfvofesthhqmhdthhdtjeenucfhrhhomhepofgrrhhkucfpohhtthhinhhg hhgrmhcuoehmnhhothesmhhnohhtrdhnvghtqeenucffohhmrghinhepmhhnohhtrdhnvg htpdgvgigrmhhplhgvrdgtohhmpdhthhgrthdrfihorhhlugenucfkphepudeggedrudef iedrudejhedrvdeknecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehmnhhothesmhhnohhtrd hnvghtnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptd
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:k5yqXJw0zc_pNAZL5lhTB2WSzUTQ2ayHskyCpqtihxpcG95PNHH_lA> <xmx:k5yqXHkyu_tKqCkJhcNZMG7GCMCjVkw6f3RxcoLrzp1ZnyWSi6DZLg> <xmx:k5yqXJk1P6rUMnKF3voR3GoIbDVj6-hGIH-xEdmpny2Bef4GYBil4Q> <xmx:lZyqXCZ9I9pfJ3qM66Kl7_YJi5ZhMJ0PHvSI8EPSSLDMnQJrFR0vug>
Received: from attitudadjuster.mnot.net (unknown [144.136.175.28]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id B41041031A; Sun, 7 Apr 2019 20:57:54 -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 <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <87y35qxyur.fsf@that.world>
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2019 10:57:52 +1000
Cc: wellknown-uri-review@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <D55EBEF4-3EF5-41DB-BBD3-A6FDD6DC09B0@mnot.net>
References: <87y35qxyur.fsf@that.world>
To: Wei Tang <hi@that.world>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.102.3)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/wellknown-uri-review/n7kGvLzsWiHsM5_ueQp8SuufO1k>
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 00:58:00 -0000

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
> 
> 

--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/