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

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Thu, 14 January 2016 05:34 UTC

Return-Path: <mnot@mnot.net>
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 899F71A90F1 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Jan 2016 21:34:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.602
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.602 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 EplbkKbozrCq for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Jan 2016 21:34:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mxout-07.mxes.net (mxout-07.mxes.net [216.86.168.182]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AA4801A90F4 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Jan 2016 21:34:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.57] (unknown [115.70.207.235]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B75F922E1F4; Thu, 14 Jan 2016 00:34:25 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2104\))
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAMm+LwiT+bATrwK4guD6qtqPBDiOkXqUeF4+jjLJoP5TYqi3_w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2016 16:34:22 +1100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <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>
To: Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2104)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/apps-discuss/X_MTE2a4xKeaPh2zOSlt4qmjNmg>
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 05:34:29 -0000

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/