Re: [Trans] Directory instead of .well-known for URL structure

[Jacob Hoffman-Andrews <[e-mail]>]

On 7/5/19 4:44 AM, Rob Stradling wrote:
> James Manager commented on this PR [1]:
> 
> "The log parameters are not URLs, but URL templates.
> The variables that can appear in the templates need to be defined as
> well. That is, 'first', 'second', 'hash', 'start, and 'end' for various
> templates.
> Otherwise the spec is still forcing URL structure on servers (ie
> variables MUST be querystring fields with these given names)."
> 
> How do folks feel about this?
> 
> 
> [1]
> https://github.com/google/certificate-transparency-rfcs/pull/311#pullrequestreview-258184865

This is a good point. At this point we've examined a good number of 
alternatives (.well-known, directory, and log parameters), and found 
that they all introduce significant complexity and implementation problems.

On the other hand, RFC 6960, which specifies paths and parameters under 
a common URL root, has been working terrifically in production for many 
years. No implementer has complained about any sort of difficulty in 
implementing that particular path structure.

I think we should appeal to "rough consensus and running code," and say 
that BCP 190 does not add value here. Worse, it threatens to tie us into 
pretzels trying to work around it.