Can you clarify if you mean a single template to cover all possible actions or separate one for each action?
The former would, I think, be tricky to define as different actions have different parameters. The latter is what we had, and is not in compliance with BCP190. Either way, the issue here is compliance with BCP190, so if your proposal is in compliance with BCP190 it's worth highlighting why (as it's not clear to me personally). Thanks, Eran On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 1:45 AM Manger, James < [email protected]> wrote: > Would it be sufficient to provide a URL template for each log, instead of > a directory URL? > Possible text: > > The address of a log is defined by a URL template [RFC6570] that MUST > include > the following variables: action, first, second, hash, start, end. > > 'action' identifies the client message, such as 'submit-entry' or > 'get-sth'. > 'first' and 'second' are tree sizes. 'hash' is a base64-encoded v2 leaf > hash. > 'start' and 'end' are 0-based entry indicies. > > Example: > https://log.example.net/ct/v2/red/{action}{?first}{?second}{?hash}{?start}{?end} > > -- > James Manger > > -----Original Message----- > From: Trans <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Rob Stradling > Sent: Tuesday, 25 June 2019 12:16 AM > To: Melinda Shore <[email protected]>; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Trans] Directory instead of .well-known for URL structure > > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > Trans mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans >
_______________________________________________ Trans mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
