W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > May 2012

Re: the "ni:" URI scheme soon to "last call" in IETF

From: Graham Klyne <GK-lists@ninebynine.org>
Date: Thu, 03 May 2012 19:53:42 +0100
Message-ID: <4FA2D436.90502@ninebynine.org>
To: Jonathan A Rees <rees@mumble.net>
CC: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
On 03/05/2012 15:52, Jonathan A Rees wrote:
> On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 6:40 PM, Larry Masinter<masinter@adobe.com>  wrote:
>> I think we talked about this under "naming things with hashes" (in this case, not "#" hash-mark fragment identifier, but rather hash-of-content).
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-farrell-decade-ni-05
>> I suggest looking at how this spec uses the word "resource". " information-centric networking" might also be an interesting topic as we talk about "local storage" also (see references).
>> Larry
> The phrase "specific resource" is used which in my mind sufficiently
> distinguishes these resources from the more generic kind you often
> access via HTTP.
> As I said before I think this topic is pretty important and this
> document should be monitored. It seems like ni: is trying to provide
> content addressing, which would be a wonderful thing to have, but I'm
> not sure how well it does.
> I'm bothered that this draft has no provision for reliably determining
> a media type and in fact does not discuss media type at all. It will
> create yet another case where sniffing is required. The server could
> provide one but there would be no reason to believe what it says (the
> whole point is to remove the need to trust the server, right?). The
> scheme could do what data: does and put the media type in the URI. Or
> the hashed content could have the syntax of headers + blank line +
> content similar to an HTTP message.
> At the very least the possibility of the server providing an attacking
> media type should be called out in the security considerations
> section.
> I don't understand the MUST in section 4. AFAICT this scheme is
> similar to ark: in that, in principle, one could ask any server at all
> for the content, since the resource's identity is determined by the
> path (except for media type). There should be no appeal to authority
> and the MUST should be superfluous.
> I guess I should join the fray. Does anyone happen to know where
> discussion is taking place?

I think it's the DECADE WG - http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/decade/charter/

Received on Thursday, 3 May 2012 21:03:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:44 UTC