One small comment, that I know the authors are aware of...
On 6 June 2012 13:33, Jonathan A Rees <rees(_at_)mumble(_dot_)net> wrote:
I think using .well-known is a good idea.
I think that using .well-known is a bad idea.
This imposes an unnecessary restriction on the deployment of
resources. /.well-known/ is a space that can only be deployed to by
an administrator of the system. By identifying specifically where the
resource might live (potentially with more than one URL), this avoids
the deployment issue.
Yes, I am aware of the "extensions".
And:
(a lot of other things)
I agree with all of this, the authority thing, the content-type thing.
All of it. (And none of the rebuttal.)
Nit:
The draft makes some strange statements about redirects.
Put another way, a server SHOULD return a 30x response when a .well-
known/ni URL is de-referenced.
Requiring a compliant HTTP implementation that follows redirects is
sufficient. What the server does to serve this request is the
server's business. Redirects seem likely, but 2119 language for the
server is not necessary for interoperation.