- From: Graham Klyne <GK-lists@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Thu, 03 May 2012 19:53:42 +0100
- 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/ #g --
Received on Thursday, 3 May 2012 21:03:48 UTC