>>>>> Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email protected]> writes:
>>>>> On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 09:30:52PM +0700, Ivan Shmakov wrote:
>> It simply doesn't seem quite right to me to use an "authority" for a
>> content-derived identifier.
> It exists (but is optional) in the future ni: scheme.
First of all, thanks for the pointer! It's exactly what I've
been looking for, and I hope that BitTorrent, Freenet, GNUnet,
and the other P2P suites and protocols will migrate to this new
URI scheme for content-derived hashes as soon as this schema
will finally become a standard.
However, there's no need to refer to the future for an example
of such an URI scheme, for there's one in the past. Namely,
urn:ietf:rfc:5538 finally codified the well-established practice
of using //authority/ with the news: URI scheme (as per the
prior specification, //authority/ was to be used with nntp:
URL's, while news: was reserved for authority-less URN's.)
For instance, the message I'm replying to could be referred to
with any of the following URI's:
news:[email protected]
news://news.gmane.org/[email protected]
news://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.peer-to-peer.p2p-hackers/3597
> I say future because the standard is approved but not yet published
> as an RFC because it depends on other documents of the HTTPbis crowd,
> which are not ready.
Namely?
[…]
> You can read the future RFC in
> <http://www.rfc-editor.org/internet-drafts/draft-farrell-decade-ni-10.txt>,
> I think it is very interesting for people here.
What I'm interested in right now is where this I-D is being
discussed, as I feel that the empty-authority (ni:///) form is
unwarranted there just as well, and a no-authority URI (ni:)
should be used instead. (Just like the news: examples above,
but contrary to the file: URI scheme.)
--
FSF associate member #7257
_______________________________________________
p2p-hackers mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.zooko.com/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers
