Farrell
Cc: Graham Klyne; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-farrell-decade-ni-07.txt (Naming Things with
Hashes) to Proposed Standard
Hello Stephen,
On 2012/06/26 20:26, Stephen Farrell wrote:
Hi again Martin,
On 06/26/2012 12:11 PM, Martin J. Dürst wrote:
So the question is really
Hello Stephen,
On 2012/06/26 20:26, Stephen Farrell wrote:
Hi again Martin,
On 06/26/2012 12:11 PM, Martin J. Dürst wrote:
So the question is really, what's the use case, and what's just a
consequence of that use case. If confirmation of already available
resources (e.g. like a fingerprint)
Hi Martin,
On 07/02/2012 12:07 PM, Martin J. Dürst wrote:
Hello Stephen,
On 2012/06/26 20:26, Stephen Farrell wrote:
Hi again Martin,
On 06/26/2012 12:11 PM, Martin J. Dürst wrote:
So the question is really, what's the use case, and what's just a
consequence of that use case. If
Hello Stephen,
On 2012/06/25 21:05, Stephen Farrell wrote:
On 06/25/2012 11:35 AM, Martin J. Dürst wrote:
Unfortunately, what I find is the following:
The justification for using a URI scheme for this is that that might
help a user agent for the speaker to better display the value, or
Hi again Martin,
On 06/26/2012 12:11 PM, Martin J. Dürst wrote:
So the question is really, what's the use case, and what's just a
consequence of that use case. If confirmation of already available
resources (e.g. like a fingerprint) is the (main?) use case, and the
greater weight on
Hi Stephen,
At 14:20 22-06-2012, Stephen Farrell wrote:
The issues raised but not so far obviously resolved on the
list were I think:
1) inclusion of content type
2) nih as a URI scheme or not
[snip]
For (2) we've left nih in as a URI scheme in this version.
We're still in favour of keeping
Hello Stephen, others,
On 2012/06/23 6:20, Stephen Farrell wrote:
Hi All,
I went back through the IETF LC comments and think that we've
resolved them all on the list and have the changes in this
version [1] of the draft, with the possible exception of those
below.
The issues raised but not
Hi Martin,
On 06/25/2012 11:35 AM, Martin J. Dürst wrote:
Hello Stephen, others,
On 2012/06/23 6:20, Stephen Farrell wrote:
Hi All,
I went back through the IETF LC comments and think that we've
resolved them all on the list and have the changes in this
version [1] of the draft, with
Hi All,
I went back through the IETF LC comments and think that we've
resolved them all on the list and have the changes in this
version [1] of the draft, with the possible exception of those
below.
The issues raised but not so far obviously resolved on the
list were I think:
1) inclusion of
Hello Stephen,
On 2012/06/12 20:08, Stephen Farrell wrote:
So would it work to add this:
Note that relative ni URIs can occur, for example as shown in
Figure 5. In such cases, user agents MUST construct the absolute URI
as they would in the case of an HTTP URL, that is, in the
On 06/13/2012 07:28 AM, Martin J. Dürst wrote:
Hello Stephen,
On 2012/06/12 20:08, Stephen Farrell wrote:
So would it work to add this:
Note that relative ni URIs can occur, for example as shown in
Figure 5. In such cases, user agents MUST construct the absolute URI
as
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 9:45 PM, Stephen Farrell
stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie wrote:
Hi Sam,
On 06/09/2012 01:43 AM, Sam Hartman wrote:
Add me as a +1 for the idea that content-type is important for this.
I tend to agree with the arguments given so far. Namely, for some
important use cases
Hello Stephen, others,
On 2012/06/08 20:21, Stephen Farrell wrote:
Hiya,
On 06/08/2012 01:35 AM, Jonathan A Rees wrote:
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 3:15 PM, Stephen Farrell
stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie wrote:
On 06/06/2012 09:33 PM, Jonathan A Rees wrote:
-- Forwarded message
Hi Martin,
On 06/12/2012 10:49 AM, Martin J. Dürst wrote:
Hello Stephen, others,
On 2012/06/08 20:21, Stephen Farrell wrote:
Hiya,
On 06/08/2012 01:35 AM, Jonathan A Rees wrote:
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 3:15 PM, Stephen Farrell
stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie wrote:
On 06/06/2012 09:33 PM,
Hello Stephen,
On 2012/06/09 10:45, Stephen Farrell wrote:
On 06/09/2012 01:43 AM, Sam Hartman wrote:
It's a naming
hierarchy. My main concern is whether the relative reference algorithm
described in section 5/4.2 of RFC 3986. In particular take a look at the
last part of section 1.2 of
Hiya,
Ah, ok I get it now. I'll look back at that again,
Ta,
S
On 06/12/2012 11:43 AM, Martin J. Dürst wrote:
Hello Stephen,
On 2012/06/09 10:45, Stephen Farrell wrote:
On 06/09/2012 01:43 AM, Sam Hartman wrote:
It's a naming
hierarchy. My main concern is whether the relative
So would it work to add this:
Note that relative ni URIs can occur, for example as shown in
Figure 5. In such cases, user agents MUST construct the absolute URI
as they would in the case of an HTTP URL, that is, in the example
shown the absolute URI for this third document would be
Having never heard of this proposal before, I found the concept
interesting, but the exposition in the draft was difficult to grasp in
certain places. I believe that it is because the text assumes that
the reader already knows the underlying theory of what the process is
intended to accomplish.
Hi Dale,
On 06/12/2012 03:04 PM, Worley, Dale R (Dale) wrote:
Having never heard of this proposal before, I found the concept
interesting, but the exposition in the draft was difficult to grasp in
certain places. I believe that it is because the text assumes that
the reader already knows
From: Stephen Farrell [stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie]
For example, in section 3, the syntax of the ni URI scheme is
spelled out with admirable clarity and exactness, including:
Digest Value [Required] The digest value MUST be encoded using the
base64url [RFC4648] encoding.
At 07:18 04-06-2012, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'Naming Things with Hashes'
draft-farrell-decade-ni-07.txt as Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final
On 06/11/2012 01:30 PM, SM wrote:
At 07:18 04-06-2012, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'Naming Things with Hashes'
draft-farrell-decade-ni-07.txt as Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 3:15 PM, Stephen Farrell
stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie wrote:
On 06/06/2012 09:33 PM, Jonathan A Rees wrote:
As requested I am sending comments on this last call draft to
ietf@ietf.org. I sent them to the authors on 6 May but received no
reply.
Once again, sorry about
Hiya,
On 06/08/2012 01:35 AM, Jonathan A Rees wrote:
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 3:15 PM, Stephen Farrell
stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie wrote:
On 06/06/2012 09:33 PM, Jonathan A Rees wrote:
As requested I am sending comments on this last call draft to
ietf@ietf.org. I sent them to the authors on 6
One small comment, that I know the authors are aware of...
On 6 June 2012 13:33, Jonathan A Rees r...@mumble.net wrote:
I think using .well-known is a good idea.
I think that using .well-known is a bad idea.
This imposes an unnecessary restriction on the deployment of
resources. /.well-known/
Hi Martin,
On 06/08/2012 10:54 PM, Martin Thomson wrote:
One small comment, that I know the authors are aware of...
On 6 June 2012 13:33, Jonathan A Rees r...@mumble.net wrote:
I think using .well-known is a good idea.
I think that using .well-known is a bad idea.
Ok. Opinions vary.
Add me as a +1 for the idea that content-type is important for this.
I tend to agree with the arguments given so far. Namely, for some
important use cases you're going to want to know the content type and
guessing is really a bad idea.
That said, there are security considerations associated with
Hi Sam,
On 06/09/2012 01:43 AM, Sam Hartman wrote:
Add me as a +1 for the idea that content-type is important for this.
I tend to agree with the arguments given so far. Namely, for some
important use cases you're going to want to know the content type and
guessing is really a bad idea.
Stephen Farrell stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie wrote:
Hi Sam,
On 06/09/2012 01:43 AM, Sam Hartman wrote:
Add me as a +1 for the idea that content-type is important for this.
I tend to agree with the arguments given so far. Namely, for some
important use cases you're going to want to know the
As requested I am sending comments on this last call draft to
ietf@ietf.org. I sent them to the authors on 6 May but received no
reply.
Jonathan Rees
-- Forwarded message --
From: Jonathan A Rees r...@mumble.net
Date: Sun, May 6, 2012 at 7:57 PM
Subject: comments on
On 06/06/2012 09:33 PM, Jonathan A Rees wrote:
As requested I am sending comments on this last call draft to
ietf@ietf.org. I sent them to the authors on 6 May but received no
reply.
Oh crap - so you did. Apologies for missing that. In the
middle of something now but will get back soon,
On 06/06/2012 09:33 PM, Jonathan A Rees wrote:
As requested I am sending comments on this last call draft to
ietf@ietf.org. I sent them to the authors on 6 May but received no
reply.
Once again, sorry about that. No idea why I missed responding,
your mail is in my client even. Ah well.
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'Naming Things with Hashes'
draft-farrell-decade-ni-07.txt as Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send
33 matches
Mail list logo
