Re: [art] Against BCP 190

Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Tue, 23 July 2019 19:34 UTC

Return-Path: <adam@nostrum.com>
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 C020B1202CF for <art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 12:34:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.98
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.98 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nostrum.com
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 XPfPRSnBDmuX for <art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 12:34:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 88916120382 for <art@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 12:34:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Orochi.local ([196.52.21.201]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id x6NJY4Zb029733 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 23 Jul 2019 14:34:07 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nostrum.com; s=default; t=1563910447; bh=XPCy3eU7kVBHnkNECiimyhIi3fM+PjRgs1Ioln/uCyY=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=Aczz1XSlWyE8sDcOqPd59ZdDw2Nq6BagFTAoBF1+bl/dA4A+dNnAaCm+tPwBsaQVb OaFvzIID5+68jwN7uSo0N+g+O4IbJySw+B+qegvR6BtBykd59DuGKkumBQo6zCou5W Ok6HOMwwJ1mNg8xlhjGE59M+gDgHJ7R1uuZ9vDT8=
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host [196.52.21.201] claimed to be Orochi.local
To: Leif Johansson <leifj@mnt.se>, art@ietf.org
References: <791b33b8-4696-f69c-aca3-8838b2caafd8@sectigo.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20190713054207.0bbd9b58@elandnews.com> <008901d5410d$90607b00$b1217100$@gmail.com> <529b1f23-75e7-c426-f884-8dd07825182d@nostrum.com> <f834b9cd-0dff-7725-a959-6514c22d3ae4@mnt.se> <eb6485fa-d3dd-8eb9-7886-b17ef9d10f81@nostrum.com> <1e6e3567-59d8-b868-4917-603b848ae984@mnt.se> <c8e5c099-fd38-e206-7145-81eb2b3d467a@nostrum.com> <ecc2a274-a698-ad19-2c8a-3385f98b02f1@mnt.se> <d34a5048-1d3a-8018-13eb-cb20d3492a9b@nostrum.com> <fcdd011d-e95f-4463-2752-d6fabb13fcd7@mnt.se>
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Message-ID: <b48ab036-e62d-16f9-5815-1e042a915bec@nostrum.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2019 15:33:55 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <fcdd011d-e95f-4463-2752-d6fabb13fcd7@mnt.se>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/UZ8TC_Fw41fPRa21n-0aVDxJILA>
Subject: Re: [art] Against 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: Tue, 23 Jul 2019 19:34:10 -0000

On 7/23/19 15:28, Leif Johansson wrote:
> I think you may be confusing multi-tentant TRANS with multi-purpose
>
> Using a domain *only* for TRANS but with multiple tenants does not
> suggest the same restrictions on the management of the URI namespace
> for that domain.


Thanks for the clarification -- I did indeed misinterpret that 
terminology distinction.

I'm also hearing others saying that they don't want to use .well-known 
because they are administratively prevented from doing so. I think that 
went at least as far in implying multi-purpose (rather than merely 
multi-tenant) as anything else that has been said.

Would it be possible to also clarify whether (and how) .well-known ends 
up being administratively reserved in a single-purpose origin?

/a