IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [apps-discuss] draft-ietf-weirds-bootstrap-00 and our lawn -- feedback?

Andrew Newton <andy@hxr.us> Sun, 16 February 2014 17:11 UTC

Return-Path: <andy@hxr.us>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBBC21A0103 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 16 Feb 2014 09:11:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.978
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.978 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7e9QYfEsQYLp for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 16 Feb 2014 09:11:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pb0-f49.google.com (mail-pb0-f49.google.com [209.85.160.49]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 669FE1A0016 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Sun, 16 Feb 2014 09:11:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pb0-f49.google.com with SMTP id up15so14211953pbc.8 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Sun, 16 Feb 2014 09:11:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=tCwV3QM4GI1eSf8sv8JuyRVqx0xBvrta8nRHVmMNrhU=; b=jzNyNm8k/MLq4mEGuT+g7XxbLrNPqG92mmzMraRfcr7CGFUcdNUmizezFI5KeDQzY9 /kPyDmtlKg9DAW3PpQNMkqRSpMXYEyopu1EbUXEU4rnR9kRz9vEF46TTymJ4LwXDNd8V PuwJdZkzANiXAY1Cg3EmVUcIW2TofXAsBiH7l3+467aOu1PVvH8g/KXXg3kXXxQSVRCY dOq1XzvyBEt3rB20cQsQYOFei942JC+jevgQ+MP33CFcwcs7mqGmA6w5DE574tO4Udgr VwilDBHLcVPZSmMoQuVwaUf+ryYY8NNB1Arch4ZKExdMwiMkrEcjgriS3TTWUHcFgON8 gsPQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmYo9t4gKEC18XDnMWuLa+YxZOfV0Amskxyo1YhwRb9SCr9b+7bvNynjkeGOi2Ywbf0ZCJm
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.68.202.8 with SMTP id ke8mr21709366pbc.86.1392570675188; Sun, 16 Feb 2014 09:11:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.68.143.4 with HTTP; Sun, 16 Feb 2014 09:11:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Originating-IP: [192.149.252.11]
In-Reply-To: <CAKioOqvuYDs1DYUXA9Tbyf=_=3mWDGH2ha3P1dE5Yd9xNxfnhA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKioOqvuYDs1DYUXA9Tbyf=_=3mWDGH2ha3P1dE5Yd9xNxfnhA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2014 12:11:15 -0500
Message-ID: <CAAQiQRf6GAiKsS+3orYEYZL8D=WOnhYmAma68TTBkPH=vXe43w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Andrew Newton <andy@hxr.us>
To: darrel@tavis.ca
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/apps-discuss/JgXAlxBOgUrg59P8nuDBlkLSY8A
Cc: IETF Apps Discuss <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] draft-ietf-weirds-bootstrap-00 and our lawn -- feedback?
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2014 17:11:25 -0000

On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 11:15 AM, Darrel Miller <darrel.miller@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm not sure I understand the problem you are alluding to.  I'm
> suggesting that servers get to choose whatever URI structure works for
> them.  I can't imagine a server application implementation picking a
> URI structure that it can't handle.  Would be pretty silly, no?

I was specifically addressing your idea of using the CIDR length as a
query parameter vs as part of the path.

With regards to templates, they have been discussed many times by the
WEIRDS wg and rejected as they complicate the clients and introduce an
extra round-trip. If the "get off my lawn" advice is to avoid URI
collisions then the current bootstrap method already accomplishes
this. On the other hand, if the advice is that URI templates MUST be
used to avoid collisions, then that is different and not what I have
heard previously.

-andy

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email