Rick Wesson [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2011-12-16 🗒️ Summary of this message: A discussion ...
📅 Original date posted:2011-12-16
🗒️ Summary of this message: A discussion about the use of HTTP(s) transport for a look-up in the PATH portion of the URI and the need for standardization in the development process.
📝 Original message:On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 12:54 PM, Andy Parkins <andyparkins at gmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
>
> You've been unfair, the equivalent of your "user at authority.tld" is
> "https://authority.tld/user"; or "https://user.authority.tld/"; or
> "https://google.com/bitcoin/user"; or any of an infinite number of other
> variations that _I_ as the mapper get to choose rather than whoever wrote
> the BIP; all of which are arguably no less "elegant" than that simple email.
>
> There is no equivalent in the other direction though. For someone who
> want's to supply the TX to their mapping server... where does it go in
> "user at authority.tld"?
actually there are many differences. Specifying a standard using a
HTTP(s) transport for a look-up isn't something that has been done in
the PATH portion of the URI and that I was pointing out that there is
*NO* RFC that specifies such for a look-up provide the inverse of many
protocol specifications that did *not* choose that methodology.
What has happened is various schemes are specified, developed and
deployed. I am sure you are familure with many. sip:// ftp:// etc://
many are described at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/URI_scheme
NAPTR records (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAPTR_record) are
another area that deserves research for those that desire URI schemes.
Understand that I am mearly advocating that as a group this work be
done in standards development process, and that IBANN is one such
effort.
-rick
🗒️ Summary of this message: A discussion about the use of HTTP(s) transport for a look-up in the PATH portion of the URI and the need for standardization in the development process.
📝 Original message:On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 12:54 PM, Andy Parkins <andyparkins at gmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
>
> You've been unfair, the equivalent of your "user at authority.tld" is
> "https://authority.tld/user"; or "https://user.authority.tld/"; or
> "https://google.com/bitcoin/user"; or any of an infinite number of other
> variations that _I_ as the mapper get to choose rather than whoever wrote
> the BIP; all of which are arguably no less "elegant" than that simple email.
>
> There is no equivalent in the other direction though. For someone who
> want's to supply the TX to their mapping server... where does it go in
> "user at authority.tld"?
actually there are many differences. Specifying a standard using a
HTTP(s) transport for a look-up isn't something that has been done in
the PATH portion of the URI and that I was pointing out that there is
*NO* RFC that specifies such for a look-up provide the inverse of many
protocol specifications that did *not* choose that methodology.
What has happened is various schemes are specified, developed and
deployed. I am sure you are familure with many. sip:// ftp:// etc://
many are described at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/URI_scheme
NAPTR records (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAPTR_record) are
another area that deserves research for those that desire URI schemes.
Understand that I am mearly advocating that as a group this work be
done in standards development process, and that IBANN is one such
effort.
-rick