Re: [art] On BCP 190

Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at> Wed, 24 July 2019 18:41 UTC

Return-Path: <dot@dotat.at>
X-Original-To: art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 252791202A5 for <art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Jul 2019 11:41:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.198
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.198 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 oJ9uYR2KMp83 for <art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Jul 2019 11:41:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ppsw-31.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw-31.csi.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.131]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 72B6F12017F for <art@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Jul 2019 11:41:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Cam-AntiVirus: no malware found
X-Cam-ScannerInfo: http://help.uis.cam.ac.uk/email-scanner-virus
Received: from grey.csi.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.57.57]:42848) by ppsw-31.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.137]:25) with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) id 1hqMCY-000Zsa-Ln (Exim 4.92) (return-path <dot@dotat.at>); Wed, 24 Jul 2019 19:41:22 +0100
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2019 19:41:22 +0100
From: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
cc: Jacob Hoffman-Andrews <jsha@letsencrypt.org>, ART Area <art@ietf.org>, Devon O'Brien <devon.obrien@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <B21F2C42-FCF5-4F54-BB28-9C8D57ED4A3D@mnot.net>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1907241905560.8471@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk>
References: <58BF6171-03BB-4F83-940F-3A101EFDD67F@mnot.net> <CAN3x4Q=Jo1uBvfCG6CSrociYgdG+E4jq+4cB1txPjgboth2q9g@mail.gmail.com> <372FA049-7B33-4981-A0E0-41BD454CB770@mnot.net> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1907241829200.8471@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk> <B21F2C42-FCF5-4F54-BB28-9C8D57ED4A3D@mnot.net>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/TSzzwwi4xO-etYOuMRwAbpei1gg>
Subject: Re: [art] On BCP 190
X-BeenThere: art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Applications and Real-Time Area Discussion <art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/art>, <mailto:art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/art/>
List-Post: <mailto:art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/art>, <mailto:art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2019 18:41:26 -0000

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:

> The applicable text is:
>
> """
> 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.
> """

OK, but that's immediately before the bit that says:

   When this happens, one solution is to designate a "well-known
   location" for data or services related to the origin overall, so that
   it can be easily located.

"One solution" implies to me that .well-known is not aimed at cases where
there are other solutions, as is the case for CT. (Even if BCP 190 doesn't
like CT's solution...)

I can't find any discussion about which non-web protocols were the
inspiration for that paragraph, and what ways they were considered
problematic. Is there more to the problem than how to get from a host
name to a URL without trampling on the host's URL namespace?

Tony.
-- 
f.anthony.n.finch  <dot@dotat.at>  http://dotat.at/
Fitzroy, Sole: South veering west 4 to 6, occasionally 7 at first. Moderate or
rough, becoming very rough in west. Occasional thundery rain. Moderate or
good, occasionally poor in southeast Fitzroy.