IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [apps-discuss] RFC 5785: Registration of .well-known services under HTTP to First Come

Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com> Thu, 14 January 2016 05:44 UTC

Return-Path: <hallam@gmail.com>
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 83B101A910E for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Jan 2016 21:44:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.278
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.278 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 zCRgx_F9IBH8 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Jan 2016 21:44:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wm0-x22a.google.com (mail-wm0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::22a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 084541A910B for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Jan 2016 21:44:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wm0-x22a.google.com with SMTP id f206so324156970wmf.0 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Jan 2016 21:44:43 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=8GGHA3xAFbMySNnhz07WlfrbzDPHoprEEz3j5z5utRk=; b=a5pyXFH88P+qlC2mP5V5YHR24zYoyyfbWq+NbKG/a0JDZgCM+15Xt3DoEQfYKxeu0Y Q82LLc6DWAF+PUHRX3yQKG7+XhbwgbOenhKA/Kq0ZD2rjKeti1/+UASyrm2oLwkSXxWN koI56YXc/Bffw/CvV+5OxZ9sV4/AkvRY8eQ9IX3DlrNNeHnk5Vz5EU9BKsoMoOZvFjNz ZZaZy2TWWZ1Ybw9w58Vwj+KLil6knibXWBGMo/qdrNKdMO1OWF3MgnRb4Mgt7tNK+Ogy lDyjTZ9mhUBrnyPnu0tVJKv4Ys22OjXFZ8s3cHdMifuUUK+/Vx8+EMHfkS6qidOyL3Dz ZQ1A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=8GGHA3xAFbMySNnhz07WlfrbzDPHoprEEz3j5z5utRk=; b=BTT+jqcf9CadNFH5Sk+yaC/R43Qq3IzqcrmYKMkRa8DSDeoZZBxhskTqKDQEGmiUDW Un4/JhAlxPTWcXVxT57CmLTouUIM4XLHLHDP7f/3ernSiphs487RpgI0b/vD3RWUDXVy 1bh+sLY3HE5OnkbNXhfhR6J334qIf/4CPvNi87gKxZnzrZMFaY1vhAzPcUoOulXdEebz YSHM1+X99FLWgqsi7joHaBpfdFVh3/WE0rDD2fdGOQbwPfb2vKB6dIjuqUcBCskhzvf6 GafA3qqIb13o7RzFItJ0agtbeyYOnacxSGIoUGXyKRB7exK59+joVl7j29fDUtOwbRbU 8VfA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkNnaiysxud/THaCHhGOn5fJ1jsoVlIwv8Qxoph7Nu81iZWCyJJNFcLU9BEQOB4t6ofQrQUTjG88avfru3sIwFM5TupQA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.25.156.198 with SMTP id f189mr623753lfe.70.1452750282654; Wed, 13 Jan 2016 21:44:42 -0800 (PST)
Sender: hallam@gmail.com
Received: by 10.112.1.33 with HTTP; Wed, 13 Jan 2016 21:44:42 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <E5435AB2-4830-4C08-AC3D-AE1FB6E66C53@mnot.net>
References: <CAMm+Lwj=A+KbxOvxFrURZmTmYJuGD3rXvnRToLZ_L+v-Qv_L_w@mail.gmail.com> <F87BF4D5-98EB-4476-B07B-969BEF842EE2@mnot.net> <CAMm+LwiT+bATrwK4guD6qtqPBDiOkXqUeF4+jjLJoP5TYqi3_w@mail.gmail.com> <E5435AB2-4830-4C08-AC3D-AE1FB6E66C53@mnot.net>
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2016 00:44:42 -0500
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 9OSomc-SCvgxyVflPK75pIYh5Ok
Message-ID: <CAMm+Lwgyrku5O5SC4vZ3noaeWQj+e3=TEjzqNWfuV0F2n_nDTg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/apps-discuss/Mf3TuYaXs5OEh8VOCgzB2dUmaNo>
Cc: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] RFC 5785: Registration of .well-known services under HTTP to First Come
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Thu, 14 Jan 2016 05:44:45 -0000

I would prefer something shorter, how about /.well-known/phb/

And since I would fill it with the well known services registry,
shouldn't it be as short as possible. And isn't phb a little ego
centric. I suggest /.well-known// That does exactly what I want (after
canonicalization).


Seriously, I am not buying the need to review here.


On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 12:34 AM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
> You can also register /.well-known/phks-protocols/ and do whatever you like under it.
>
>
>> On 14 Jan 2016, at 4:26 pm, Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 10:35 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
>>> SRV isn't used by HTTP, so I'm not seeing a strong motivation for aligning the policies. Given that .well-known is a mechanism for allocating a URL on *every* Web server on the planet, and that space is ceded to standard uses by server authorities (the actual owners of that name space), having a higher bar to entry than FCFS seems like a good idea.
>>
>> SRV is used for discovery of many Web Services. The obvious pattern being:
>>
>> 1) Resolve the DNS address to a host using the SRV record
>>
>> 2) Use the .well-known convention to identify the service endpoint on
>> the specified host.
>>
>> I do not see the logic in your assertion that space is being reserved
>> on every Web server on the planet. That was already done when
>> .well-known was allocated in the first place. The question now being
>> how to best prevent conflicts within that space.
>>
>> Having to pass through a review to get a code point allocation is
>> empirically the least effective way of avoiding conflict.
>>
>> Since I have a code generator I can simply write something into the
>> tool to generate the request for the code point allocation and send it
>> to the registry review expert but I suspect that would not be
>> appreciated.
>
> --
> Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
>
>
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email