From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Rbeo2-0000Up-Je for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 16 Dec 2011 20:55:02 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 74.125.82.53 as permitted sender) client-ip=74.125.82.53; envelope-from=andyparkins@gmail.com; helo=mail-ww0-f53.google.com; Received: from mail-ww0-f53.google.com ([74.125.82.53]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-MD5:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1Rbeo0-00054e-Cn for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 16 Dec 2011 20:55:02 +0000 Received: by wgbds1 with SMTP id ds1so6204673wgb.10 for ; Fri, 16 Dec 2011 12:54:54 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.180.84.71 with SMTP id w7mr14920258wiy.37.1324068894285; Fri, 16 Dec 2011 12:54:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from grissom.localnet ([91.84.15.31]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id hq5sm14600710wib.7.2011.12.16.12.54.51 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 16 Dec 2011 12:54:52 -0800 (PST) From: Andy Parkins To: Rick Wesson Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 20:54:50 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/3.0.0-1-686-pae; KDE/4.6.4; i686; ; ) References: <1323731781.42953.YahooMailClassic@web120920.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <201112161710.15165.andyparkins@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201112162054.51039.andyparkins@gmail.com> X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (andyparkins[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature X-Headers-End: 1Rbeo0-00054e-Cn Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Fwd: [BIP 15] Aliases X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 20:55:02 -0000 On Friday 16 Dec 2011 17:41:25 Rick Wesson wrote: > Its a negative example -- in that the IETF does not specify anything > in the PATH part of the URI. The scheme, sure, but not in the path, > there are many types of URI schemes ( start with RFC 2396 ) You seem to have jumped off the topic; you mentioned that there were thousands of RFCs that we should review over why we shouldn't use a URI; and you've pointed at an RFC that shows how a URI can be used. While you're right that CGI and HTTP aren't magic; they are commonplace; and it's important when we want an infinitely expandable mapping system that people can use technology they are already familiar with. People already have web servers, people already understand URIs. It's not "just what we are used to"; people who can cope with development of the bitcoin protocol aren't going to be worried about protocol complexity. It is a concern about what the rest of the world will have to do to get a bitcoin alias. > Providing a mapping from user@authority.tld addresses usability and No it doesn't address usability at all, because it falls down on the first attempt: what if I want to supply a URI that allows my web service to link an invoice number to an issued bitcoin address? You've forced every mapping service to be identical, and limited. > identity. I'd like to see an elegant transformation, specifically I > take to task anyone that advocates > https://authority/foo/user?tx=1zhd789632uilos as elegant. You've been unfair, the equivalent of your "user@authority.tld" is "https://authority.tld/user" or "https://user.authority.tld/" or "https://google.com/bitcoin/user" or any of an infinite number of other variations that _I_ as the mapper get to choose rather than whoever wrote the BIP; all of which are arguably no less "elegant" than that simple email. There is no equivalent in the other direction though. For someone who want's to supply the TX to their mapping server... where does it go in "user@authority.tld"? Andy -- Dr Andy Parkins andyparkins@gmail.com