On 2011-10-03 09:29, "Martin J. Dürst" wrote:
On 2011/09/30 23:40, [email protected] answered Phillip
Hallam-Baker:
Only real issue for me is that it has to fit in URI type slots. The
scheme I was thinking of would be a pure URN scheme, your proposal
includes URL like things.
If you use what RFC 2396 calles the 'opaque' syntax (e.g. no slashes at
all; in RFC 3986, I think slashes would even be allowed if they don't
appear directly after the first ':'), then you can define an URI scheme
without including host-like stuff and you don't have to use "urn:" as a
prefix.
Yep. We have use-cases for that. Note though that the authority
part is optional, so a fairly bare digest is quite possible and
would look like ni:///sha256:NDVmZTMzOGVkY2Jj...
The triple slash at the beginning is a bad idea. There should only be
slashes if the scheme conforms to the generic syntax (i.e. a double
slash, something like a host name, and then slashes for something
pathlike). Just ni:sha256:NDVmZTMzOGVkY2Jj... is way better.
> ...
Also keep in mind that if you use "/" for a different purpose than
hierarchy, surprising things will happen when relative references are
resolved. It's good to avoid them in this case.
Best regards, Julian
_______________________________________________
websec mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/websec
