Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Fwd: [BIP 15] Aliases

From: Rick Wesson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 09:41:25 -0800

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 )

There is significant upside to having your own scheme and having apps
understand how to integrate with it. Frankly, having just one client
(I understand there are more) is an artifact that hinders acceptance
and participation. If you want to go the route of https then
specifying a scheme is your path forward

I still believe that it is experience that is leading this thread down
the rat-hole of CGI and HTTP requests. The stuff isn't magic, it is
just what you are used to. Review the bitcoin protocol, there is an
elegance there -- not found  in the https schemes proposed thus far.
CGI isn't a protocol, nor does it address usability/identity issues.

Providing a mapping from [email-masked] addresses usability and
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.

-rick

On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 9:10 AM, Andy Parkins <[email-masked]> wrote:
> On 2011 December 16 Friday, Rick Wesson wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 4:07 PM, slush <[email-masked]> wrote:
>> > I really like this proposal with standard URLs. All other proposals like
>> > DNS mapping or email aliases converted to URLs with some weird logic
>> > looks strange to me.
>>
>> wow, really. Maybe you could review some RFCs, there are thousands of
>> examples where some really smart engineers chose the exact opposite
>> path which you propose below.
>
> Could you point me at an example?
>
>
> Andy
>
> --
> Dr Andy Parkins
> [email-masked]