Re: Request for well-known URI: est

[SM <[e-mail]>]

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.

Regards,
-sm