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

From: Rick Wesson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 13:50:54 -0800

On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 12:54 PM, Andy Parkins <[email-masked]> wrote:

[snip]

>
> You've been unfair, the equivalent of your "[email-masked]" 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
> "[email-masked]"?

actually there are many differences. Specifying a standard using a
HTTP(s) transport for a look-up isn't something that has been done in
the PATH portion of the URI and that I was pointing out that there is
*NO* RFC that specifies such for a look-up provide the inverse of many
protocol specifications that did *not* choose that methodology.

What has happened is various schemes are specified, developed and
deployed. I am sure you are familure with many. sip:// ftp:// etc://
many are described at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/URI_scheme

NAPTR records (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAPTR_record) are
another area that deserves research for those that desire URI schemes.

Understand that I am mearly advocating that as a group this work be
done in standards development process, and that IBANN is one such
effort.

-rick