Re: Request for well-known URI: est

[Mark Nottingham <[e-mail]>]

On 17/08/2013, at 1:22 PM, Peter Saint-Andre <[e-mail]> 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.

5785 requires the registered value to "conform to the segment-nz production" defined in the URI specification. It also allows a registration's spec to "contain additional information, such as the syntax of additional path components, query strings and/or fragment identifiers to be appended to the well-known URI".

This means that the registration for "est" controls the path "/.well-known/est/foo" but not ".well-known/estimation".  

I think it'd be a stretch to read it any other way. Could it be more clear? Perhaps, but this is one of the reasons we have expert review.

Cheers,

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/