Re: [wellknown-uri-review] A .well-known registration for review: ni

[Eran Hammer <[e-mail]>]

The main issue is how to get clients updated to use the other location. If you use host-meta, you don't need any registration, just mint a relation type (registered or uri) and use host-meta to contain this information. If you use the ni well-known location, you need to register that.

My personal preference would be to register the ni prefix and use 3xx to obtain the actual endpoint, unless you think there will be overlap between host-meta identity/authentication/social use cases and this, in which case it will be more effective to reuse host-meta.

EH

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen Farrell [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2012 8:35 AM
> To: Eran Hammer
> Cc: Alexey Melnikov; Barry Leiba; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [wellknown-uri-review] A .well-known registration for review: ni
> 
> 
> Hi Eran,
> 
> A follow up question.
> 
> If we plumped for the 3xx approach now, on the basis that its simpler, but
> found out later that the host-meta way of doing it would be more useful, is
> there an easy way to update things so both options would be available, in a
> sensible way? (Why do I feel like I'm webfingering:-)
> 
> I want to just go for one approach now, but am wondering if that would need
> a new registry entry if we wanted to use the other one later. That wouldn't
> necessarily be a problem, I'd just like to know before we make a change to
> one or the other.
> 
> Ta,
> S
> 
> On 05/01/2012 03:44 PM, Eran Hammer wrote:
> > I am writing this in my capacity as the registry's Designated Expert.
> >
> > This will be an informal review as I have not received a proper review
> request using the template and email format specified in RFC 5785.
> >
> > I have read through the document and have some concerns about its use
> of the Well-Known URI registry. When the registry was created, it was
> explicitly designed not to form a large namespace or allow the creation of
> resource trees within in. Section 1.1 is pretty explicit about this:
> >
> > ---
> > 1.1.  Appropriate Use of Well-Known URIs
> >
> >    There are a number of possible ways that applications could use Well-
> >    known URIs.  However, in keeping with the Architecture of the World-
> >    Wide Web [W3C.REC-webarch-20041215], well-known URIs are not
> intended
> >    for general information retrieval or establishment of large URI
> >    namespaces on the Web.  Rather, they are designed to facilitate
> >    discovery of information on a site when it isn't practical to use
> >    other mechanisms; for example, when discovering policy that needs to
> >    be evaluated before a resource is accessed, or when using multiple
> >    round-trips is judged detrimental to performance.
> >
> >    As such, the well-known URI space was created with the expectation
> >    that it will be used to make site-wide policy information and other
> >    metadata available directly (if sufficiently concise), or provide
> >    references to other URIs that provide such metadata.
> > ---
> >
> > I do not believe that this draft utilizes the registry in the way it was
> designed. In fact, it is set to accomplish the exact opposite, where an
> unlimited number of resources may be made available within the well-
> known namespace.
> >
> > An easy solution would be to create a single well-known resource that will
> always redirect using an HTTP 3xx response to the actual, non-well-known,
> URI prefix to be used by the rest of the scheme. This is the approach taken
> by CalDAV and CardDAV well-known resources defined in [1], after a similar
> discussion.
> >
> > Another solution is to use the host-meta well-known document [2] by
> including a property or link record to the actual prefix, or alternatively, using a
> URI template to allow more flexibility in the design of such URIs (if that is
> desired).
> >
> > Of course, the two proposed solutions add another round trip to the
> request, at least for the initial one - something the document authors will
> need to consider in their design and use cases.
> >
> > EH
> >
> > [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-daboo-srv-caldav-10
> > [2] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6415
> >
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: [e-mail] [mailto:wellknown-uri-
> >> [e-mail]] On Behalf Of Stephen Farrell
> >> Sent: Monday, April 30, 2012 9:00 AM
> >> Cc: Alexey Melnikov; Barry Leiba;
> >> [e-mail];
> >> [e-mail]
> >> Subject: [wellknown-uri-review] A .well-known registration for review
> >>
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> We have a draft [1] that requests a registration of a .well-known URI.
> >>
> >> The core WG are likely to want to use these we think and possibly
> >> decade, but they're intended to be generally useful as well.
> >>
> >> Barry Leiba is planning to AD sponsor this and Alexey Melnikov will
> >> be shepherding so if you can cc them as well as the authors on any
> >> questions or comments that'd be good.
> >>
> >> I hope the plan is to IETF LC this soon, once this review and the uri
> >> registrations review are done.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Stephen.
> >>
> >> [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-farrell-decade-ni-05
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> wellknown-uri-review mailing list
> >> [e-mail]
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/wellknown-uri-review