Re: [core] Review of draft-ietf-core-comi-09

[Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]>]

On 2020-05-04, at 10:42, Ivaylo Petrov <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Section 4: It's not okay to mandate or recommend specific paths like
> </c> and </s>. Not even with a lower-cased "recommended". It's fine to
> define a path structure after the "root path" of the application and
> use an example path in examples, but implementers should not be
> restricted or discouraged in any way to choose a different path (see
> BCP 190). The best choice is probably to use a long, not very nice
> looking path like </path/to/the/data/store/X9?k="eth0">, so that
> implementers immediately get the idea to pick a shorter path
> themselves :-)
> 
> [IP]: I believe I captured what was suggested here, but please check if that is indeed the case.

This problem of course comes up repeatedly in a number of WGs.
Here is an example from a position on this as taken in the OAuth WG: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/QH7Mc2gDjONLi58c2g_5nt0UL44>

I don’t think that filling all examples with noise such as /path/to/the/data/store is really helpful.
I would prefer to have most examples use the IYDHABI (*) paths, with only a few alternative paths (all different!) used in some examples.

BCP 190 asks to ensure the server has a choice, not that all servers must make different choices.

Grüße, Carsten

(*) “if you don’t have a better idea”™