Re: [apps-discuss] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-nottingham-http-browser-hints-01.txt

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Mon, 30 May 2011 12:57 UTC

Return-Path: <mnot@mnot.net>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 817D0E06F7 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 May 2011 05:57:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.286
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.286 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.687, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id miWHYtO-lm5k for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 May 2011 05:57:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxout-08.mxes.net (mxout-08.mxes.net [216.86.168.183]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BEA6E0651 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 May 2011 05:57:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from chancetrain-lm.mnot.net (unknown [118.209.214.143]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A6134509E2; Mon, 30 May 2011 08:57:44 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTi=s9jHu=_+VVTxAvdEts=9Dts2h0Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 30 May 2011 22:57:41 +1000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <70A19350-4EA8-4FB4-89CF-B6D4E7FA456B@mnot.net>
References: <BANLkTi=s9jHu=_+VVTxAvdEts=9Dts2h0Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bjartur Thorlacius <svartman95@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Cc: apps-discuss@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-nottingham-http-browser-hints-01.txt
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Mon, 30 May 2011 12:57:52 -0000

Bjartur,

See RFC 5785.

Cheers,


On 30/05/2011, at 8:48 AM, Bjartur Thorlacius wrote:

> The current draft specifies that browser hints are a resource
> identified by the URI "/.well-known/browser-hints" resolved relative
> to an URI scheme, an authority section, and an empty path (assuming I
> understand the draft correctly). I believe this to be harmful, as the
> URI shares the authority section with other URIs, but is in fact named
> by IETF (even though IETF doesn't maintain the resource).
> Have you considered the possibility of passing this information as a
> response to another method than GET, e.g. OPTIONS?
> If creating a new method or reusing OPTIONS isn't an option (no pun
> intended), could a new URI scheme be used, so that the hints are still
> assigned an URI, without polluting the namespace supposedly given to
> domain name registrants, and potentially clashing with existing or
> future URIs.
> _______________________________________________
> apps-discuss mailing list
> apps-discuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/