Post

Evelyn
@kandake.africa

It breaks the protocol in a way as yhen every developer needs to define a new set of lexicons that would structurally be identical.

Jack
@jackvalinsky.com

so the idea is that a if it's under a different uri than you can reuse lexicons but it resolves the data differently?

0 reposts0 likes

Evelyn
@kandake.africa

I personally don't think a new URI is even needed as it's addressing at the end of the day which can inherently indicate if it's private. I'm still seeing this as a protocol extension rather than new protocol

Jack
@jackvalinsky.com

I'm assuming that adding a new uri also introduces new headaches for the working group/people working on standards?

daniel holmgren 🫠
@dholms.at

well the particular rub here is that at-uris are in scope for the ietf working group on at protocol. but permissioned data isn't in scope. so this awkwardly straddles the line if we're trying to tack something onto the uri format while the working group is actively trying to standardize it

Emelia
@thisismissem.social

Right, which makes it even more the WGs responsibility to make sure our URI scheme works for multiple future needs, and doesn't lock us into one usage