On 2011-10-04 at 07:40:56, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: > http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-hallambaker-digesturi-01.txt ... > * Scheme for specifying one or more locations for retrieval
Please don't use /.well-known/ without some sort of extra qualification. My "mu" digest produces base-64 output that could collide with existing registrations in that space. It's just like a game of "battleship". I'm really hoping to hit "host-meta" some day... What do you think of: di:sha-256:B_K97zTtFuOhug27fke4_Zgc4Myz4b_lZNgsQjy6fkc?r=https://di.example.com/r/ or di:sha-256:B_K97zTtFuOhug27fke4_Zgc4Myz4b_lZNgsQjy6fkc?r=https://di.example.com/r/{d} ...where retrieval is performed using: https://di.example.com/r/B_K97zTtFuOhug27fke4_Zgc4Myz4b_lZNgsQjy6fkc > * Scheme for decrypting encrypted stored content. I don't see the encryption and content type parameters as a necessity. If the core goal of the document is to identify a resource, then providing resource metadata is, as a generic capability, very useful. However, the specific subset of cases you have chosen exhibits a bias that might not fit with all future uses. _______________________________________________ websec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/websec
