Stephane,
Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 09:07:48AM -0400,
Miles Fidelman <[email protected]> wrote
a message of 16 lines which said:
A URI into a DHT is really for local consumption only - it's a key
into the local code that executes the DHT's algorithm, rather than
an identifier that can be used across the net.
Many URIs behave that way and they are still "normal" URI. For
instance, the geo: URIs of RFC 5870.
and
Many schemes (I gave examples in this thread: tag;, geo:, etc) do not
imply a protocol and do not create URI that you can "follow".
and
> or to a name resolver - the exception being some URN namespaces that
> only provide identification, but not an inherent access mechanism
It is not an exception, it is actually the majority of URI schemes.
Fair enough, and accurate, though... I'll point out that, at least in my
experience:
1. There are a LOT more registered URI schemes, and URN namespaces than
anybody actually uses.
2. Most of the URI schemes that are actually used, tend to include a
protocol.
3. (I may be on shakier ground here) the few URN namespaces that I've
seen that have any traction at all, seem to have a resolution protocol
associated with them - and usually the resolution ends up being a plain
old HTTP URL.
I guess what I'm really asking is: What's the utility of a URI scheme
for DHTs (either a general scheme or one specific to, say, gnunet or
bittorrent), other than as, perhaps, a notational device, if it's not
tied to an access and/or a resolution protocol that can be implemented
in, say, a proxy of some sort?
Miles
--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra
_______________________________________________
p2p-hackers mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.zooko.com/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers
