On 8 Oct 2017, at 10:08 pm, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > The decision to define a .well-known URI without a discovery story is - in my > opinion - inadvisable. Such a registration is usually appropriate if you > design a protocol that depends on discovery by hostname and port. As such, > this does not use that at all. A configuration system can (and should) accept > a complete URI for the service endpoint. It would be better to defer creation > of yet another .well-known URI registration until the working group is certain > that discovery requires it. I'll second this. Generally, you only want to register a .well-known when there's a good story for why using a URL isn't possible. Typically, this is when you genuinely need to convey policy or metadata applicable to the whole origin. >From 5785: """ well-known URIs are not intended for general information retrieval or establishment of large URI namespaces on the Web. Rather, they are designed to facilitate discovery of information on a site when it isn't practical to use other mechanisms; for example, when discovering policy that needs to be evaluated before a resource is accessed, or when using multiple round-trips is judged detrimental to performance. As such, the well-known URI space was created with the expectation that it will be used to make site-wide policy information and other metadata available directly (if sufficiently concise), or provide references to other URIs that provide such metadata. """ Cheers, -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/