On 26/06/2019 04:00, Manger, James wrote: <snip> > A directory with a separate template for every action is a more pure > design: it gives a log total flexibility in URL design; and is easily > extendable if the log API gets far more complex in future.
I prefer the directory approach (vs URI templates), for these very reasons. Some logs might want to support additional API endpoints (e.g., there was a "get-sths" proposal a while ago - https://github.com/google/certificate-transparency-rfcs/pull/200). And some "logs" might want to support a subset of the standard log API (e.g., imagine a log submission proxy that only offers a "submit-entry" endpoint that, when called, forwards the submit-entry request to multiple real logs). > At the cost of extra calls & code to read, parse, and process the directory. Agreed, but I think it's worth this cost. > -- > > James Manger > > *From:*Trans <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of *Eran Messeri > *Sent:* Tuesday, 25 June 2019 8:12 PM > *To:* Manger, James <[email protected]> > *Cc:* Rob Stradling <[email protected]>; [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [Trans] Directory instead of .well-known for URL structure > > 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] > <mailto:[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} > > <https://log.example.net/ct/v2/red/%7Baction%7D%7B?first%7D%7B?second%7D%7B?hash%7D%7B?start%7D%7B?end%7D> > > -- > James Manger > > -----Original Message----- > From: Trans <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > On Behalf Of Rob Stradling > Sent: Tuesday, 25 June 2019 12:16 AM > To: Melinda Shore <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>>; [email protected] > <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[email protected]> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans > > _______________________________________________ > Trans mailing list > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans > -- 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
