Re: FYI: new draft of site-meta; now well-known

Joe Gregorio <joe@bitworking.org> Mon, 13 July 2009 02:45 UTC

Return-Path: <joe@bitworking.org>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A29D28C1FF for <apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 12 Jul 2009 19:45:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.377
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.377 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.599, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id twvYx479KDKD for <apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 12 Jul 2009 19:45:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-gx0-f220.google.com (mail-gx0-f220.google.com [209.85.217.220]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7258628C1DD for <discuss@apps.ietf.org>; Sun, 12 Jul 2009 19:45:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by gxk20 with SMTP id 20so12298792gxk.10 for <discuss@apps.ietf.org>; Sun, 12 Jul 2009 19:45:42 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.100.165.8 with SMTP id n8mr6438515ane.111.1247453141971; Sun, 12 Jul 2009 19:45:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [72.148.43.48]
In-Reply-To: <A89DB2C2-1A29-4680-AE41-CCC749132631@mnot.net>
References: <A89DB2C2-1A29-4680-AE41-CCC749132631@mnot.net>
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2009 22:45:41 -0400
Message-ID: <a23d87fa0907121945j63f3d7a4ydfb98ac82487867e@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: FYI: new draft of site-meta; now well-known
From: Joe Gregorio <joe@bitworking.org>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0016e640876866b50a046e8d511a"
Cc: Apps Discuss <discuss@apps.ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 02:45:14 -0000

This looks good. I'm historically opposed to well-known URIs, but
have mellowed to pragmatism in the past several years.
I'm very happy to see the spec cover the minimum needed to
do the job and you successfully avoided 'discovery' and left the definition
of
sub-paths and query parameters to the spec for each well known location.

I have spotted two issues:

1) The problem with the current wording is that it leaves
the use of fragment identifiers ambiguous in specs
that defined well-known locations. I would suggest addressing it to
remove the ambiguity.

   It MAY also contain additional information, such as the syntax of
   additional path components, query strings, or fragment identifiers
   to be appended to the well-known URI, or protocol-specific details
   (e.g., HTTP [RFC2616] method handling).


2) You explain that the spec doesn't say anything about the formats and
media-types
to be expected at a well-known URI, but fail to mention that the same
lack of guarantee also applies to the URI "/.well-known/" itself. To the end
of Section 3 you could add:

   Note that this specification also does not define a format or media-type
   for the resource at "/.well-known/" and clients should not expect a
   resource to exist at that location.

   Thanks,
   -joe

On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 11:38 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:

> See:
>  http://bit.ly/48bdmV
>
> Cheers,
>
> --
> Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
>
> _______________________________________________
> Apps-Discuss mailing list
> Apps-Discuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
>