Re: [decade] FW: Last Call: <draft-farrell-decade-ni-07.txt> (Naming Things with Hashes) to Proposed Standard

Martin Thomson <> Fri, 08 June 2012 21:54 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3BC821F86E4 for <>; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 14:54:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.28
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.28 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.681, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VSPTUxPlMHAQ for <>; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 14:54:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25B2721F86E0 for <>; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 14:54:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by bkty8 with SMTP id y8so2508338bkt.31 for <>; Fri, 08 Jun 2012 14:54:18 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=VqnJFSev2i4kvK/KZJmCFMm+GQmC70DjMaksu/yIi7U=; b=bXSfY5cA0mRGESxCAokNMh7gRt7NdU7g4Dy7wUbN5zkXqtyq/SZ9e+Mnj4++aglB78 busxFvll2Dz2M/czDOxm1Hg0TdgF6I+9JH9xiaxAWbWu20Lx5GRzG9BnAUlzTM82Sydp QQJiLtNgLhesjjQvGR5huuAD6v4a5aHfFTSXoLayw9sJ8g3nBk0zMWbBXwf4qXNKTy3M /6ZLIJFJDSY0M8iKiGaHQ2KMiyP+sS5sdEPGWtLhfucdpLXYf5usn7OkMqkKfx8pVbir orNmaN7o+J4EbcnzFn4jXycHD1NTc6k7LbGN3y0pBpVLWYdYvs+/ocIJbcWqaFL/WJPv YBIA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with SMTP id x20mr6848079bkv.26.1339192458229; Fri, 08 Jun 2012 14:54:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 14:54:18 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <>
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2012 14:54:18 -0700
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: [decade] FW: Last Call: <draft-farrell-decade-ni-07.txt> (Naming Things with Hashes) to Proposed Standard
From: Martin Thomson <>
To: Jonathan A Rees <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2012 21:54:19 -0000

One small comment, that I know the authors are aware of...

On 6 June 2012 13:33, Jonathan A Rees <> wrote:
> I think using .well-known is a good idea.

I think that using .well-known is a bad idea.

This imposes an unnecessary restriction on the deployment of
resources.  /.well-known/ is a space that can only be deployed to by
an administrator of the system.  By identifying specifically where the
resource might live (potentially with more than one URL), this avoids
the deployment issue.

Yes, I am aware of the "extensions".

> (a lot of other things)

I agree with all of this, the authority thing, the content-type thing.
 All of it.  (And none of the rebuttal.)

The draft makes some strange statements about redirects.

   Put another way, a server SHOULD return a 30x response when a .well-
   known/ni URL is de-referenced.

Requiring a compliant HTTP implementation that follows redirects is
sufficient.  What the server does to serve this request is the
server's business.  Redirects seem likely, but 2119 language for the
server is not necessary for interoperation.