On 19 jul 2010, at 16.07, Cyrus Daboo wrote: >> Let me state that I do not think we should delay the >> draft-daboo-srv-caldav IF a work like this is started. If we get some >> work like this, I suggest letting draft-daboo-srv-caldav pass, given >> people do not think the solution with an http redirect is too weird. > > So Alexey did ask the authors of .well-known about this use and we have a little side-thread going on that. I am certainly willingly to be persuaded that draft-daboo-srv-caldav is stretching the use too far, in which case I would suggest a "TXT path='/xyz'" solution. > > So one question I have with URI is whether additional "metadata" is likely to be needed? In which case TXT is likely to be used at provide that. If that is the case, then I don't see why URI is needed, vs SRV/TXT (with a path= in the TXT). Use of TXT RR? Arghhhh... Not better. Why, why, why? >> I do not like the mechanism proposed in draft-daboo-srv-caldav. >> Definitely not. But that is a different thing than requiring rough >> consensus on a generic way of finding an endpoint of a connection for a >> service. >> >> Luckily, Maastricht is a week from now and we can talk about it. > > I'm up for that. Excellent. Interested parties should try to meet. Patrik
Attachment:
PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf