Re: On IETF policy for protocol registries

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 2016-01-22, at 15:57, Lars Eggert <lars@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 2016-01-22, at 10:42, Eliot Lear <lear@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 1/22/16 10:08 AM, Eggert, Lars wrote:
>>> Right. Or the ability to run multiple web servers on different ports
>>> in a way that results in a priori known URLs, such as result from
>>> assigning unique ports and then including them in the URLs. (That is
>>> why I earlier in the thread proposed to start allowing service names
>>> in addition to ports in URLs.)
>> 
>> But .well-known could easily provide, if nothing else, a redirect to
>> such services.
> 
> If whoever wants to deploy this other service has the ability to change the configuration of the server running on 80/443, to add that redirect. For the IANA assignment requests we see, they usually don't. (Fragile or impossible due to permissions to have one software install change the configuration of another.)
> 
> Allowing a service name in the URL that is looked up with DNS-SD

(sorry, fat-fingered "send")

...avoids this issue.

Lars

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]