Re: [Http-well-known] Speculative registrations

Mark Nottingham <> Wed, 01 August 2018 01:39 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58443130E5B for <>; Tue, 31 Jul 2018 18:39:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.82
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.82 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.b=A30mZgpm; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.b=fY86wQAk
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lIpHX3tF8lWQ for <>; Tue, 31 Jul 2018 18:39:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4B443130F0A for <>; Tue, 31 Jul 2018 18:39:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.internal []) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9617721E81; Tue, 31 Jul 2018 21:39:51 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailfrontend2 ([]) by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 31 Jul 2018 21:39:51 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; h=cc :content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-sender :x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; bh=NJyvAvupKcbBINONbllNYBTuotbmU em8aLnoFYhsLe8=; b=A30mZgpmHYMtOFtUkGEWGxwD0teCStoJf/qv+M7unuMjc lbPTe9PcwK7EnLnvRHWNLTIGmIKM+nBYEdOsPjq9D4GcGC/LGFUpzR2cJFu/AiFI DKODHvb5YplSriZl4TdhkVfnibUGuzR7lezHtAJJX42kjXSNXVx51ueFJbPix76q 4xBamJDaN+oldpUdPyI9jkrMt9Crme2tLG0zOaXtDhRMpQpA1ZLKn/yHAe0DKHYO LOM8VYNu1WXTW4/wUzC2POtV6dLyQW8ZUpaB+JTCqMQ5zWU2mBPYz9aYlJb6sUo/ J/Gl4B/eUes5UM3sIL4TKG1JDIEcGrxK+L71GlJxw==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; bh=NJyvAv upKcbBINONbllNYBTuotbmUem8aLnoFYhsLe8=; b=fY86wQAk02L4Z8fhe077g6 +qZDq5cDWkmX+7t7qMnmpRoW9kx23f+592TIWBFt7dtPswvpbzkVxDa/ERB5pVFI FLYjK70KXd7rHZnMZgakVb/3k8zcl3EtGF8S60GOZJJgXsLDhFP+Ppk2q9cuHHkD nskSm+DHY4pX1iCzofqw144oNmslmIbEQtyssTXwXnzbQiJXWYM5o6RrUquPUjjl LdTi6E3p0BHyn4swSc6OX8c0oPRtnaUdjWOri2L1aVdJa9Qslq2n3jaGamjIC3vV 3L3xJdQdpRXG5j8WUj+nHOzA09a8dzXzDvlxDI4Jjy9PLdOA5OadUGYMUM5n5Qyw ==
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:Zg9hW3wyCSVqSrXNgjuMLkT6ogO_2P1JDNdXFNzEvuc98OsnNHQFuQ> <xmx:Zg9hW2YYtY0qr7IiPe1Afkw2oXs5JDWO3gF5mlDiRMMv-SBcw4-uYA> <xmx:Zg9hWzuE6es_i1ZNhnOY6fl0Q6Me3bG10raPLzrD97JoyMaZB4nGjw> <xmx:Zg9hW7M5_gydW5n3Hp5UK9rzqKi-RNFRAonimfMxj0U4xWr8PmWxsA> <xmx:Zg9hW-5Xy0Dpwf32PaCs3vRKLsInsvJvBrVMdq8rRMMtweEAOueGJw> <xmx:Zw9hWw8DHYLgZQzfSQFrPJOhb6FT8idMXWmuAZRfWlSEQfRm8QLlxw>
X-ME-Sender: <xms:Zg9hW-eDW-1S2RDNUOWjcw-aGhJwNs5cTL5Q8SYKgsU8ZBJuPthroA>
Received: from macbook-pro.localdomain (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPA id B75B710277; Tue, 31 Jul 2018 21:39:49 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
From: Mark Nottingham <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2018 11:39:46 +1000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <>
To: =?utf-8?B?Ik1hcnRpbiBKLiBEw7xyc3Qi?= <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Http-well-known] Speculative registrations
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of HTTP Well-Known URIs <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2018 01:39:55 -0000

Hi Martin,

I think I agree with you on the points below. 

Right now I'm wondering how a provisional status would be helpful; often there's no practical difference between "provisional" and "permanent."

I could see it being useful if we allowed a provisional entry to be de-registered with notice to the registrant, e.g,. if a standard use pre-empted it, or if it is seen to fall into disuse. 

That would require a bit of extra process text, but I tend to think it's worth it for registrations that are tentative (like this).



> On 22 Jul 2018, at 4:41 pm, Martin J. Dürst <> wrote:
> Hello Mark,
> On 2018/07/20 00:29, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> Question for folks ---
>> The registration request below is not unusual basically, someone has had an idea, written up a pseudo-spec (here, on GitHub), and requested registration.
>> Under both RFC5785 and the proposed bis, I don't think there are strong grounds for refusing this request.
>> In particular, there is no evidence of deployment here, or even collaboration with others. Does that cause any discomfort?
> Not at all. The proposer is trying to register before circulating his draft, so that he doesn't get comments such as "but it's not registered". In some sense, just due diligence that we should encourage.
>> On the one hand, we want to be open and have a low bar for registration; on the other, speculative requests like this are likely to grow, and if there are too many (especially with overlapping or competing semantics), it can make the registry less useful.
> We better accept this now that tell him (and similar others) to come back when he has more deployment, because he (and others) might never come back.
>> Any thoughts about this?
>> My inclination is to encourage collaboration / demonstrate at least interest in deployment before registration, but that would just be advice, not reason for refusal.
> How are registrants supposed to demonstrate (interest in) deployment? Should they send a number of signatures on a petition saying "yes, we are interested in deployment, please, please, IANA, register it"? And for actual deployment, how many places? It's easy for many people to put a file on a Web Server in the .well-known directory, and that's already a deployment of one.
>> I do wonder if we need a "provisional" status, with the understanding that if no deployment is demonstrated within (say) a year, it is de-registered.
> If you want to create "provisional" as a status, I won't mind. But just leave it at provisional. De-registration after a year is just work, which nobody may find the time to do.
> Regards,   Martin.
>> Cheers,
>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>> From: matthew churcher <>
>>> Subject: Request for well-known URI: anti-phishing.json
>>> Date: 17 July 2018 at 5:56:07 pm GMT-4
>>> To:
>>> Archived-At: <>
>>> URI suffix:
>>> anti-phishing.json
>>> Change controller:
>>> Matthew Churcher < <>>
>>> Specification document(s): <>
>>> Related information: This is a new initiative which currently has no citations. I'm looking to provisionally secure a well-known uri in preparation to circulate a draft specification for wider discussion. Any comment is welcome via email or GitHub.

Mark Nottingham