[Http-well-known] Do we really want to define free

Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca> Mon, 14 May 2018 13:12 UTC

Return-Path: <fluffy@iii.ca>
X-Original-To: http-well-known@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: http-well-known@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0411127077 for <http-well-known@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 May 2018 06:12:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yx72kUTfZjNO for <http-well-known@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 May 2018 06:12:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp82.iad3a.emailsrvr.com (smtp82.iad3a.emailsrvr.com []) (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 A33051270A7 for <http-well-known@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 May 2018 06:12:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp35.relay.iad3a.emailsrvr.com (localhost []) by smtp35.relay.iad3a.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 434265DF2; Mon, 14 May 2018 09:12:22 -0400 (EDT)
X-Auth-ID: fluffy@iii.ca
Received: by smtp35.relay.iad3a.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: fluffy-AT-iii.ca) with ESMTPSA id 04797573F; Mon, 14 May 2018 09:12:21 -0400 (EDT)
X-Sender-Id: fluffy@iii.ca
Received: from [] (S0106004268479ae3.cg.shawcable.net []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384) by (trex/5.7.12); Mon, 14 May 2018 09:12:22 -0400
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.3 \(3445.6.18\))
From: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca>
In-Reply-To: <272B547C-35B1-46C0-90A2-D6167C346115@mnot.net>
Date: Mon, 14 May 2018 07:12:20 -0600
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <CF93893F-E0CB-41D4-ACED-FB9A050B9CEF@iii.ca>
References: <272B547C-35B1-46C0-90A2-D6167C346115@mnot.net>
To: http-well-known@ietf.org
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.6.18)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/http-well-known/531AEVh763fQOQS484F2XxKMhX8>
Subject: [Http-well-known] Do we really want to define free
X-BeenThere: http-well-known@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of HTTP Well-Known URIs <http-well-known.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/http-well-known>, <mailto:http-well-known-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/http-well-known/>
List-Post: <mailto:http-well-known@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:http-well-known-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/http-well-known>, <mailto:http-well-known-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 May 2018 13:12:29 -0000

Thank you for making progress on this draft. 

One question I had related to the text that says 

“Registrations MUST reference a freely available, stable specification.”

In other documents, people have argued for that but that means that 3GPP (and others) would not be able to use the mechanism which seems bad. 

In the name of broad use and getting done, I would prefer to just use "Specification Required" from RFC 5226. 

But if we don’t do that, we better specify what we mean by “free” in this context.