Re: Request for well-known URI: est

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Fri, 23 August 2013 03:10 UTC

Return-Path: <mnot@mnot.net>
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 80B6211E8194 for <wellknown-uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Aug 2013 20:10:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -104.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.100, 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 rjhGoNFaJNEy for <wellknown-uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Aug 2013 20:10:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxout-08.mxes.net (mxout-08.mxes.net [216.86.168.183]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A2D411E818F for <wellknown-uri-review@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2013 20:10:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mnot-mini.mnot.net (unknown [118.209.235.39]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 79D49509B6; Thu, 22 Aug 2013 23:10:33 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.5 \(1508\))
Subject: Re: Request for well-known URI: est
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <520D3F11.5090301@stpeter.im>
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2013 13:10:33 +1000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <5185A426-5719-4B3A-B0CD-2ABC7D7E73B3@mnot.net>
References: <516D6CC8.6070705@ieca.com> <520D2A8D.3030100@stpeter.im> <53EA47528D6ACF4486AA152F92C2B698F6EF09@xmb-rcd-x03.cisco.com> <520D3F11.5090301@stpeter.im>
To: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1508)
Cc: "<apps-ads@tools.ietf.org>" <apps-ads@tools.ietf.org>, "Max Pritikin \(pritikin\)" <pritikin@cisco.com>, Sean Turner <turners@ieca.com>, "<wellknown-uri-review@ietf.org>" <wellknown-uri-review@ietf.org>, "<draft-ietf-pkix-est@tools.ietf.org>" <draft-ietf-pkix-est@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, 23 Aug 2013 03:10:43 -0000

On 16/08/2013, at 6:50 AM, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> wrote:

> Now, that's not really the fault of the EST draft at some level, because
> RFC 5785 doesn't make it clear how to specify such things in the
> registration template.
> 
>> I agree it would be useful to clarify if somebody could come along
>> later and define a .well-known location such as
>> "/.well-known/est/somethingNew". By my reading this "tree", if you
>> will, starts at .well-known/est and thus any such attempted
>> registration should fail due to the conflict.
> 
> So it seems. It's kind of like URN namespaces: we're setting up an
> authority of some sort for everything below "/.well-known/est" but we're
> really not saying how that authority needs to operate. IMHO this is a
> gap in RFC 5785...

If you want to delegate / control the name space below the space you register in well known, that's up to you; 5785 is purposefully silent about it, because you might decide to use an IANA registry for that, or you might decide to use the DNS, or use a UUID, or...

Cheers,

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