1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
|
Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <bitcoin-list@bluematt.me>) id 1RsMUi-0002QV-EZ
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 31 Jan 2012 22:48:08 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of bluematt.me
designates 173.246.101.161 as permitted sender)
client-ip=173.246.101.161;
envelope-from=bitcoin-list@bluematt.me; helo=mail.bluematt.me;
Received: from vps.bluematt.me ([173.246.101.161] helo=mail.bluematt.me)
by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
id 1RsMUe-0001N3-Al for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 31 Jan 2012 22:48:08 +0000
Received: from [152.23.242.64] (dhcp00572.resnet-1x-wireless.unc.edu
[152.23.242.64])
by mail.bluematt.me (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 100CF3F8
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Tue, 31 Jan 2012 23:39:18 +0100 (CET)
From: Matt Corallo <bitcoin-list@bluematt.me>
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
In-Reply-To: <CAKm8k+0o0fBcBgRMOEc3nycGaLN7EEvfQ5wrZN4XwO5Gk2Pk5w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1328020046.70720.YahooMailNeo@web121002.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
<1328025899.2832.5.camel@BMThinkPad.lan.bluematt.me>
<1328034145.2832.11.camel@BMThinkPad.lan.bluematt.me>
<jg9p4a$c90$1@dough.gmane.org>
<CAKm8k+0o0fBcBgRMOEc3nycGaLN7EEvfQ5wrZN4XwO5Gk2Pk5w@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 17:47:57 -0500
Message-ID: <1328050077.2891.4.camel@BMThinkPad.lan.bluematt.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.32.2
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: -1.5 (-)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
sender-domain
-0.0 T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay
domain
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
0.0 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list
X-Headers-End: 1RsMUe-0001N3-Al
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP 20 Rejected, process for BIP 21N
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 22:48:08 -0000
Odd, here I was thinking I checked that. Just goes to show how useful
sources other than the rfc itself are... Anyway, Ill change it to a
hyphen.
Matt
On Tue, 2012-01-31 at 22:37 +0000, Gary Rowe wrote:
> Andreas has a good point. See RFC 3986 on URI
> schemes: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986#page-12
>
>
> The colon is a reserved general delimiter (similar in use to the / in
> a typical URL, but applies to URNs etc). As suggested, we get
> req:something being changed to one of the unreserved characters that
> do not have to be URL encoded. Again, from the RFC these are
>
>
> * Option A: req_something (underscore)
> * Option B: req-something (hyphen)
> * Option C: req~something (tilde)
> * Option D: req.something (period)
>
>
> Personally, my eye likes Option B, the hyphen.
>
> On 31 January 2012 22:14, Andreas Schildbach <andreas@schildbach.de>
> wrote:
> On 01/31/2012 07:22 PM, Matt Corallo wrote:
>
> > that "It is recommended that additional variables prefixed
> with
> > mustimplement: not be used in a mission-critical way until a
> grace
>
>
> Is the ':' sign actually allowed in URL parameter names
> (unescaped/unencoded)? If not, I'd propose an unrestricted
> char instead,
> maybe '_'.
|
