On 1/22/2016 1:08 AM, Eggert, Lars wrote: > On 2016-01-20, at 23:41, Joe Touch <touch@xxxxxxx> wrote: ... >> What we really need is a way for many interfaces to be able to >> "register" with their local web server, to reserve URL prefixes, etc. > > 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.) This has nothing to do with merging .well-known and SRV. The need to run multiple URI namespaces on a single webserver with dynamic registration is a path coordination issue. The URI already provides more than enough information to differentiate these uses by path. Yes, this is a problem, but not solved by the proposed merging. -- The proposed merging of .well-known and SRV doesn't make sense for URIs. A URI starts with a scheme - many of which are IANA port services BUT NOT ALL ARE. I.e., URI schemes and SRVs are not coordinated either. .well-known is defined in the context of *one* scheme. It makes even less sense to merge these with SRV names. Joe