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

Mark Nottingham <> Tue, 22 May 2018 00:21 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5793512DA48 for <>; Mon, 21 May 2018 17:21:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.b=udxHMEv1; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.b=C+4mXtQI
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GwO4Li4p_ri8 for <>; Mon, 21 May 2018 17:21:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 85D4312E8EB for <>; Mon, 21 May 2018 17:21:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.internal []) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2CA72248A; Mon, 21 May 2018 20:21:02 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailfrontend2 ([]) by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 21 May 2018 20:21:02 -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=fm2; bh=nFZ3vXvffozpIouhP+dwQx47V+ZHM MCI3WTD8O8mj1g=; b=udxHMEv1CcPEkwSVMTBysN9bv3H2qqajrj/o+q9zxB9l1 KlwkTNZh1+6Xu1PH1iTf8TogLwZNQg95TWRCAx8Ifakg9CQzaGUqHsq8EXD1a21n 1S+vtrLtBvmNF5RrqtZYZ+CfF+DTxFDls7a20pZxff/Kh5M7iy2N2pTWmmb1+q3p hefAEd2GAKv/YS7kAjPLQHYjyMkQ/pztX8BjaAY+orHVTqE8EsDXunMx+GLzQ+TF 2mttKeLZuuW3ttQUuR7XVzaNYVyG5/k6gSb1di6rgjvMqqeer3urXA2wS8CfLSEM WSN4KRaq5W2Yb4qpfeOnam4Y4KGZJluwwjLZVtDeg==
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=fm2; bh=nFZ3vX vffozpIouhP+dwQx47V+ZHMMCI3WTD8O8mj1g=; b=C+4mXtQIlozdrJOsuqJwYN 2FuhkftAvim0nTgsgtztix4TtAIOFEGBIaklKfJY23Q7kygghN93XeUxduYJ4jjV 35tKXLh63IPGtfhofKjJsOy+vRbhmSUyHNKAkW5mTnZrYfSxCtJiATVwoPpwE4DV DBobvImnsDYF3peX8i8r3lvjMnTTJKCUOoiTqCZfndmyW0mRVfsFIf/ifh63gwLp tLHKnQq/Ja/uNFCGY821PAGat4+gYgoW6uTrqQIYqkcazmBYxODJa26d48EQMo9u 5E+ekEzjVzMB0ekujP8j4KxYHrd57rydiDydp7eRLbfogTKZz9fyNO/S1XmB2NJw ==
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:bmIDWymyXMeeLIvOlDk7qte0jL0-2_WvxdS9t1QCBxjB3hNuh6JMmg>
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:bmIDWyi13ygrvFiXKAhgUA4FAOkJh8QyEFVj0rZtSh3rWPPdO2PEgQ>
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:bmIDW76DReATtA7JkUkt7okLIQucP1DGVAY-dBTXRxFmFKBShjAOwg>
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:bmIDW5B8auXUg7Alr1rq5903lq5Wj5yEl3YCyMbUoxKhLPQWw4fnWA>
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:bmIDW1UdVUOSKBOp7y6OjWoG4V1ygYLOOxLJ0RLyxUd-Yr3c3eMShA>
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:bmIDW8sgqdLC25L8fJBdNIPPT0fzuKJUbkt5sY4J-6PQfcylh_Wkyg>
X-ME-Sender: <xms:bmIDW97h1pTfqH-wh8sW2TCL_pi6cg60-n5RMtJEhGyLBMpM9ok6iw>
Received: from [] (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 4A15E10261; Mon, 21 May 2018 20:21:01 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.3 \(3445.6.18\))
From: Mark Nottingham <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 22 May 2018 10:20:58 +1000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <>
To: Cullen Jennings <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.6.18)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Http-well-known] Do we really want to define free
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of HTTP Well-Known URIs <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 May 2018 00:21:12 -0000

> On 14 May 2018, at 11:12 pm, Cullen Jennings <> wrote:
> 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. 

8126 :)

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

The intent is to lower this barrier, not raise it. 3GPP would certainly qualify. 

Personally, I think a spec on a site run by any organisation -- open source project, company, foundation, etc. -- would be fine too.

I'm a bit less comfortable with using a personal site -- but of course we can always update the registration, and there are things like

I also think that this includes WHATWG specs, despite their "living standard " policy.

Re-reading 8126, yes I think Specification Required would suffice.


Mark Nottingham