This sounds unanimous. :-) I'll go ahead and make this change, and I'll cancel the registration process for "ct" as a .well-known URI suffix.
On 24/06/2019 01:05, Melinda Shore wrote: > 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 > -- Rob Stradling Senior Research & Development Scientist Email: [email protected] Bradford, UK Office: +441274024707 Sectigo Limited This message and any files associated with it may contain legally privileged, confidential, or proprietary information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are not permitted to use, copy, or forward it, in whole or in part without the express consent of the sender. Please notify the sender by reply email, disregard the foregoing messages, and delete it immediately. _______________________________________________ Trans mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
