IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [art] On BCP 190

Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at> Wed, 24 July 2019 18:00 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 50767120316 for <art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Jul 2019 11:00:41 -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 czKJgNYqpeBU for <art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Jul 2019 11:00:38 -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 5D84E12015B for <art@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Jul 2019 11:00:38 -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]:40816) 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 1hqLZ6-000FHz-Lh (Exim 4.92) (return-path <dot@dotat.at>); Wed, 24 Jul 2019 19:00:36 +0100
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2019 19:00:36 +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: <372FA049-7B33-4981-A0E0-41BD454CB770@mnot.net>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1907241829200.8471@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>
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/XFb0tTx40_U34o7p6a9aeqiiv1M>
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 18:00:41 -0000

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
>
> 1) Using .well-known. This is precisely what well-known is for,

I'm still having difficulty understanding this. RFC 8615 says:

   Some applications on the Web require the discovery of information
   about an origin [RFC6454] (sometimes called "site-wide metadata")
   before making a request. [...]

   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. [...]

But CT isn't providing metadata about the origin overall. And CT has a
separate mechanism for finding out where an endpointis located so it
doesn't need a fixed well-known location.

Tony.
-- 
f.anthony.n.finch  <dot@dotat.at>  http://dotat.at/
Irish Sea: South or southeast 3 to 5. Slight, occasionally moderate. Showers
later. Good occasionally poor.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email