Re: Request for well-known URI: est

Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> Sat, 17 August 2013 02:50 UTC

Return-Path: <stpeter@stpeter.im>
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 3989711E8205 for <wellknown-uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Aug 2013 19:50:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 KFYlDifxhIke for <wellknown-uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Aug 2013 19:50:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1DA411E80F4 for <wellknown-uri-review@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 Aug 2013 19:50:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ergon.local (unknown [71.237.13.154]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7C1FD414F7; Fri, 16 Aug 2013 20:53:48 -0600 (MDT)
Message-ID: <520EE500.3080103@stpeter.im>
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2013 20:50:40 -0600
From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130620 Thunderbird/17.0.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Subject: Re: Request for well-known URI: est
References: <CE32E9BA.1F636%dharkins@arubanetworks.com> <520EAF60.2010509@stpeter.im> <CALaySJKxr1bxqo554zLQN2ttv=KdBoV4qnOnBaCWVXbX1NrRog@mail.gmail.com> <520EE13B.4020909@stpeter.im> <CALaySJJ6XWH8JNok26C5pv7JM-_6hqBHG1aGxDvKZGdh=erkGw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALaySJJ6XWH8JNok26C5pv7JM-_6hqBHG1aGxDvKZGdh=erkGw@mail.gmail.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Dan Harkins <dharkins@arubanetworks.com>, "<draft-ietf-pkix-est@tools.ietf.org>" <draft-ietf-pkix-est@tools.ietf.org>, "Max Pritikin \(pritikin\)" <pritikin@cisco.com>, "<app-ads@tools.ietf.org>" <app-ads@tools.ietf.org>, Sean Turner <turners@ieca.com>, "<wellknown-uri-review@ietf.org>" <wellknown-uri-review@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: Sat, 17 Aug 2013 02:50:46 -0000

On 8/16/13 8:39 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:
>>>> I'd be happy to raise this issue on the apps-discuss list, unless the
>>>> application area directors tell me that's not the right place.
>>>
>>> I'm not at all sure what the issue is.
>>>
>>> Is it, "We don't like .well-known [and/or we don't know why we should
>>> be using it" ?  Or is there something else here?
>>
>> Previously described:
>>
>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/wellknown-uri-review/current/msg00087.html
> 
> Ah.
> 
> No, I hadn't seen that.  I agree with Mark on the interpretation, and
> that's the advice I had given to Sean.

The IANA Considerations section of the EST spec says:

   IANA is to update the well-known URI registry with the following
   filled-in template from [RFC5785].

      URI suffix: est

      Change controller: IETF

That doesn't cover what it needs to cover, i.e., the kind of information
mentioned in RFC 5785:

   Typically, a registration will reference a specification that defines
   the format and associated media type to be obtained by dereferencing
   the well-known URI.

   It MAY also 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, or protocol-specific details
   (e.g., HTTP [RFC2616] method handling).

None of that "additional information" is in the registration request, so
it's not clear to me that IANA will have the information it needs to
properly process this registration.

> apps-discuss would be a fine place to chat about that.

I'll raise the more general issue there.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/