Post

how do we feel about `space://`?

I'd prefer not another URI scheme

what about adding a "private" type to lexicons to avoid another uri scheme? is that a bad idea?

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

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

And why can't that be done in an at:// URI?

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

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

I think the big question is how much different / separate / incompatible all of this new stuff will be from all the current stuff…

in case it got buried, I like Emelia's suggestion: at://<did>/<extension>/<nsid> where here <extension> is "space" or w/e to denote private data, avoids new uri or adding some kind of private type to the Lexicon type system