ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: On IETF policy for protocol registries

2016-01-22 13:15:25


On 1/22/2016 1:08 AM, Eggert, Lars wrote:
On 2016-01-20, at 23:41, Joe Touch <touch(_at_)isi(_dot_)edu> wrote:
...
What we really need is a way for many interfaces to be able to
"register" with their local web server, to reserve URL prefixes, etc.

Right. Or the ability to run multiple web servers on different ports
in a way that results in a priori known URLs, such as result from
assigning unique ports and then including them in the URLs. (That is why
I earlier in the thread proposed to start allowing service names in
addition to ports in URLs.)

This has nothing to do with merging .well-known and SRV.

The need to run multiple URI namespaces on a single webserver with
dynamic registration is a path coordination issue. The URI already
provides more than enough information to differentiate these uses by
path. Yes, this is a problem, but not solved by the proposed merging.

--

The proposed merging of .well-known and SRV doesn't make sense for URIs.
A URI starts with a scheme - many of which are IANA port services BUT
NOT ALL ARE. I.e., URI schemes and SRVs are not coordinated either.

.well-known is defined in the context of *one* scheme. It makes even
less sense to merge these with SRV names.

Joe