Re: [art] On BCP 190

[Jacob Hoffman-Andrews <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 11:03 AM Mark Nottingham <[e-mail]> wrote:

> """
> At the same time, it has become more popular to use HTTP as a
>  substrate for non-Web protocols.  Sometimes, such protocols need a
>  way to locate one or more resources on a given host.
> """
>
> (Not particularly defending the clarity of that text overall -- we were
> trying to graft an expanded set of use cases onto an existing spec).


It seems like this graft didn't really solve the problem it intended to
solve. Since Section 2.3b isn't about protecting the URL namespace commons,
moving things under .well-known doesn't address the requirements laid out
in 2.3b.

Instead, 2.3b is about practicality, implementation, and "harming
yourself." Since some implementers can only use query parameters
(ostensibly), 2.3b says protocol designers should not define semantics
based on paths. Moving the protocol under .well-known doesn't address those
practical implementation concerns at all. If an implementer can only
implement using query semantics, that is still a problem whether or not the
prefix contains .well-known.

> Which category to you think that paragraph of Section 2.3 (call it 2.3b)
> belongs to? It sounds like it belongs to the "harming yourself" category,
> which means that it's not actually protecting a commons.
> Probably the latter. That's just my opinion, though -- which is why if you
> want to go down the exception path, the best thing to do would be to
> coordinate with the AD and figure out what that's going to take.


FWIW, Adam Roach, one of the ART ADs, has said that what it would take is
the community's agreement, which is what we're working on establishing
right now.