Re: On IETF policy for protocol registries

Hi Lars,

On 1/22/16 3:57 PM, Eggert, Lars wrote:
> > But .well-known could easily provide, if nothing else, a redirect to
> > such services.
> If whoever wants to deploy this other service has the ability to change the 
> configuration of the server running on 80/443, to add that redirect. For the 
> IANA assignment requests we see, they usually don't. (Fragile or impossible 
> due to permissions to have one software install change the configuration of 
> another.)
>
> Allowing a service name in the URL that is looked up with DNS-SD
I guess the question should be asked: what would break if changed the
grammar of a URI?  I think the answer is "quite a lot", and some of it
might be in places we really don't want it to break.

But you may be right that this won't solve it for every applicant we see
in the port registry.  Maybe it should be acceptable to say to the
applicant, “you need inform (somehow) the process owner  to redirect
this guy to the real management app,” and then reject the request. 
.well-known seems perfectly reasonable for that.  As Phill wrote,
Microsoft has had this forever, and with .well-known there really is no
excuse for this sort of thing to continue.

Eliot

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature