On 6/23/19 3:28 PM, Martin Thomson wrote: > I agree with Jacob here. As I have expressed in the past, I believe > that this is a better design than the well-known prefix.
> On Fri, Jun 21, 2019, at 08:33, Jacob Hoffman-Andrews wrote: >> The latest draft adopts a /.well-known/ path for CT as a way to get >> around BCP 190 (URI Design and Ownership: >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp190#section-3). >> >> Personally I think BCP 190 makes it needlessly painful to specify >> HTTP-based APIs using techniques that are very common among >> practitioners. However, given that it is still considered best >> practice for IETF documents, I propose that CT should use a >> different workaround, one used very successfully by ACME: Directory >> URLs. I have a fairly profound dislike for BCP 190, to be honest, and am in agreement with the proposal. Melinda -- Melinda Shore [email protected] Software longa, hardware brevis _______________________________________________ Trans mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
