Re: Request for well-known URI: est

SM <> Sat, 17 August 2013 04:16 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7508511E81C0 for <>; Fri, 16 Aug 2013 21:16:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.429
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.429 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.170, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TdfSwU7Fm6jW for <>; Fri, 16 Aug 2013 21:16:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3F3C11E80FD for <>; Fri, 16 Aug 2013 21:16:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (IDENT:sm@localhost []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r7H4GX5I017473; Fri, 16 Aug 2013 21:16:37 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail2010; t=1376713003; bh=94XbRjUkP8iNJdYE9UwpwEfDM4D18+txtK/SodC+Eo4=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=RoBM7PbVvNyG3vHTnJZRtDO/A5UntDn0QfTs/aAWtHP4Ho9BClC301A3xQ3Waq2TN 2N/F1dv4oXB9WOU2JCJho6y7jb4BsfK3fhHd01kbqoCf8ud6pVB2IeXNY8gdH00VWB f3GTnsHH8RYfcRu8Q2r1PHtBzJdc/ILxsy7VwTZc=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail; t=1376713003;; bh=94XbRjUkP8iNJdYE9UwpwEfDM4D18+txtK/SodC+Eo4=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=dDizb98/FKSJfGmxK4yxq/3yXiKcYF6IBYgk2lZEXoJCzVj6Y0rtKs+aAN7lfHjOI UDJdNnc+DO2JiErcrilF1EutSeKt4MOp1J8WuE4Ux48VEA7zqCAf9YBc8dUJ//O8ha ew4/rzMQEnCXRhwxA0qWFR3DGRzJHjCtfKVMsPRw=
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2013 20:58:28 -0700
To: Peter Saint-Andre <>
From: SM <>
Subject: Re: Request for well-known URI: est
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Cc: Dan Harkins <>,, "Max Pritikin \(pritikin\)" <>,, Sean Turner <>,
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Well-Known URI review list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2013 04:16:47 -0000

Hi Peter,
At 20:22 16-08-2013, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>I don't think that really helps matters, because it's still unclear
>whether each of the well-known URIs (cacerts, simpleenroll, etc.) needs
>to be added to the registry, whether IANA needs to deny future requests
>that start with "est" (e.g., "/.well-known/estimation") since "the
>syntax of additional path components" (RFC 5785) is not specified, etc.
>If the EST spec is reserving any path component after "est" (as in
>"/.well-known/est/cacerts", "/.well-known/est/arbitraryLabel1/cacerts",
>etc.) then IMHO that needs to be defined in the EST spec. I don't think
>the EST spec is trying to reserve *any* well-known URI that starts with
>"est" but that too isn't clear. I think we all have a sense of what the
>EST spec and RFC 5785 are trying to do in such cases, but it's not
>specified very well in this case or in general.
>But maybe I'm making a mountain out of a mole hill...

I don't think that you are making a mountain out of a mole hill.  I 
commented on the template to try and get the clerical issue out of the way.

I read RFC 5785.  Whether each of the well-known URIs needs to be 
added is subject to interpretation.  I don't think that it is 
possible to fix that, if a fix is needed, quickly.  The workaround 
would be to use the "related information" field to specify the syntax 
of additional path components.