Re: Request for well-known URI: est

Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> Fri, 16 August 2013 23:02 UTC

Return-Path: <stpeter@stpeter.im>
X-Original-To: wellknown-uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: wellknown-uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D6B211E81B7 for <wellknown-uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Aug 2013 16:02:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nUrSBDh-sDZm for <wellknown-uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Aug 2013 16:01:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 644E111E81B6 for <wellknown-uri-review@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 Aug 2013 16:01:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ergon.local (unknown [71.237.13.154]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C1E19414F7; Fri, 16 Aug 2013 17:05:00 -0600 (MDT)
Message-ID: <520EAF60.2010509@stpeter.im>
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2013 17:01:52 -0600
From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130620 Thunderbird/17.0.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Dan Harkins <dharkins@arubanetworks.com>
Subject: Re: Request for well-known URI: est
References: <CE32E9BA.1F636%dharkins@arubanetworks.com>
In-Reply-To: <CE32E9BA.1F636%dharkins@arubanetworks.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "Max Pritikin \(pritikin\)" <pritikin@cisco.com>, "<draft-ietf-pkix-est@tools.ietf.org>" <draft-ietf-pkix-est@tools.ietf.org>, Sean Turner <turners@ieca.com>, "<wellknown-uri-review@ietf.org>" <wellknown-uri-review@ietf.org>, "<app-ads@tools.ietf.org>" <app-ads@tools.ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: wellknown-uri-review@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Well-Known URI review list <wellknown-uri-review.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/wellknown-uri-review>, <mailto:wellknown-uri-review-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/wellknown-uri-review>
List-Post: <mailto:wellknown-uri-review@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:wellknown-uri-review-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/wellknown-uri-review>, <mailto:wellknown-uri-review-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2013 23:02:01 -0000

On 8/15/13 9:29 PM, Dan Harkins wrote:
> 
> 
> On 8/15/13 3:17 PM, "Peter Saint-Andre" <stpeter@stpeter.im> wrote:
> 
>> On 8/15/13 3:30 PM, Dan Harkins wrote:
>>>
>>>   Is EST the guinea pig for this .well-known stuff? Seems
>>> like it.
>>
>> No, other folks have registered things before:
>>
>> http://www.iana.org/assignments/well-known-uris/
>>
>>>   I have heard nothing but complaints from implementers about
>>> this-- "that's stupid", "why on earth would you require that?",
>>> "nobody does this", etc.-- and would not mind getting a
>>> dispensation from the Canon Law here.
>>
>> I'm not sure that the well-known-uri-review list is really the right
>> place for a long discussion about the philosophy of /.well-known/ :-)
> 
>   Yes, of course. I feel like this is from the movie Brazil.
> 
>   "We only process the 587 stroke 3 forms here, if you want to
> complain about it you must file a 552 stroke 6 with the Bureau
> of Redressing Forms over at the Institute of Assignment." Where
> I will, no doubt, get maced.

:-)

I'd be happy to raise this issue on the apps-discuss list, unless the
application area directors tell me that's not the right place.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/