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 >
- FYI: new draft of site-meta; now well-known Mark Nottingham
- Re: FYI: new draft of site-meta; now well-known Brad Fitzpatrick
- Re: FYI: new draft of site-meta; now well-known Mark Nottingham
- Re: FYI: new draft of site-meta; now well-known Brad Fitzpatrick
- Re: FYI: new draft of site-meta; now well-known Joe Gregorio
- Re: FYI: new draft of site-meta; now well-known Mark Nottingham
- Re: FYI: new draft of site-meta; now well-known Peter Koch
- Re: FYI: new draft of site-meta; now well-known Mark Nottingham
- Re: FYI: new draft of site-meta; now well-known Sam Johnston