register ipld: with ietf

[jonnycrunch]

@Stebalien as discussed, this would be helpful with working in standards development that demand a valid URI schema.

[joeltg]

@mikeal @vmx what's your take on URIs for IPLD nodes? I think it's important to have one defined even if we don't try to register with ietf (there's clearly interest and I don't see any downside to recommending a format now). Maybe dweb:/ipld/<cid> to mirror dweb:/ipfs/?

[Stebalien]

Really, I think we need both.

• For browsers: ipld://Cid/path. This is technically incorrect as the "Cid" isn't an "authority". However, we already have to use this format for ipfs:// and ipns:// as browsers use the authority to determine the origin.
• For standards: dweb:/ipld/.... I actually prefer this one because it's (a) "more correct" and (b) preserves the path form.

Note: In our applications, we still plan on using paths (for now, at least). We use paths for everything because they're composable (although, IMO, we need to write an internal standard/registry for path namespaces).

[jonnycrunch]

I can live with dweb:/ipld/ if that is on track for ietf. I'd prefer ipld: As far as authority, since there isn't one, it doesn't require the two slashes//, just ipld:<cid> ( my mistake) . I have conceded that in the Decentralized Identifiers spec (https://w3c-ccg.github.io/did-spec/), the DID is the @id, basically a valid URL , not a web URL but a valid Uniform Resource Location that is still a mutable document, just a decentralized one that doesn't have a single point of failure.