Re: [Doh] [Ext] Reviewing Resolver-Associated DOH

[Mark Nottingham <[e-mail]>]

*well-known URI expert hat on*

Without speaking to the technical merit of the proposals being discussed, I'd like to discourage folks from thinking that they can reserve prefixes within the first well-known URI path segment; it is a managed space, but if we start this practice, we're going to have a nightmare managing the competing requirements.

If you want to reserve a prefix, reserve something like /.well-known/dns-servers/ and put the specific flavour after that (or in the retrieved file, or...).

All that said, bike shedding the name at this point probably isn't a terribly productive use of time.

Thanks,


> On 19 Mar 2019, at 8:56 am, Hewitt, Rory <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> I'm firmly in favor of having a naming 'convention' of:
> 
> 	/.well-known/dns-doh-servers
> 
> I think it's critical to have "dns-" as the name prefix, to clearly indicate that this is a DNS-related file. Then "doh-" to indicate that this is a DoH-specific file and so on... Using this convention means that the DoT folks can create their own files as
> 
> 	/.well-known/dns-dot-servers
> 
> While your idea of "/.well-known/dns-over-https-servers" fulfills the first "dns-" part of my convention (and it's also very clear what it is 😊), I guess I'm always going to be antsy that there's going to be a new DNS-related 'technology' in the future called e.g. "Carrier-Pigeon DNS" and that team is going to call their file "/.well-known/carrier-pigeon-dns". So it's better (IMHO) to explicitly indicate that it's a series of Three-Letter-Acronyms...
> 
> Of course, a naming convention only works if everyone both knows about it and follows it. Even if we decide to use a 'strict' naming convention, unless it's both 'publicized' and 'enforced', it's kinda useless.

--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/