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; 
From: Andy Parkins <andyparkins@gmail.com>
To: Rick Wesson <rick@support-intelligence.com>
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>
	<CAJ1JLts8JQ2J=DqJTD76gq2KB02ycqqeJjwaDyY2tPX8SJwvVA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJ1JLts8JQ2J=DqJTD76gq2KB02ycqqeJjwaDyY2tPX8SJwvVA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201112162054.51039.andyparkins@gmail.com>
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Fwd: [BIP 15] Aliases
Precedence: list

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