Re: [core] Report on first Resource Directory plugtest

[Christian M. Amsüss <[e-mail]>]

On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 11:47:32AM -0700, Jim Schaad wrote:
> Carsten Bormann wrote:
> > We could also use formal URI templates and just say that they are to be
> > interpreted in the sensible way described above.
> > 
> > (I’m not a fan of RFC 6570 URI templates at all, because the approach is full of
> > brokenness of the kind you describe(*); but it was available at the time…)
> 
> I would agree that I would not have read this as needing to have two
> "?" characters in the query parameters.  My issue is that I worry
> about the case that an RD decides to use foo=XXX as the location query
> and then some application decides to use foo as a query parameter in
> the extra parameters or in a link description.  This works fine on RD
> implementation #1 because it is just using a location path to point to
> the end point, but when it hits RD implementation #2 which is using
> the location query as well it starts failing.  

There would not be a conflict with use in links descriptions, but still
would be with extra parameters in a registration update.

On those grounds I'll propose a text to rule out query parameters.

Thanks
Christian

-- 
To use raw power is to make yourself infinitely vulnerable to greater powers.
  -- Bene Gesserit axiom