On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 03:12:19PM -0500, Martin Thomson wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2019, at 04:55, Michael Richardson wrote:
> > I'm not sure where this query goes, so ietf@xxxxxxxx.
I thought art@xxxxxxxx was supposed to be most appropriate for these
sorts of questions, being the successor to apps-discuss, but it seems to
be very low traffic nowadays (compared to apps-discuss!), and a recent
post of mine there got no replies. ietf@xxxxxxxx seems appropriate
given that.
> My view on this, which- in the interest of transparency - is not
> uniformly held, is that versioning in URLs is generally not advisable
> for the same reason x- isn't. See rfc 6648.
>
> I see /api/v1 all the time, but don't see the point. What that does is
> bake semantics into the path, which is akin to an rfc 7320 violation.
>
> The goal is to ensure that incompatible versions are properly
> distinguished. For that purpose, all you need to do is ensure that the
> URL for v1 is not the same as the URL for v2. To that end, /api and
> /apiv2 work amply. Or you could name the protocol.
While I agree that I'd rather not see a version number in URIs if I
don't have to, I don't think there's much of a moral difference
between /api/vN/... and {/api/..., /apivN/...}. Both end up with
version numbers in the URI local-part components, with the second
case avoiding them only for the first version -- hardly a huge win.
If you really want to avoid version numbers in URI local-part components
then you should have different URI local-parts for different versions.
Or register and use a new header to communicate version numbers. Maybe
we should have standard, generic API version negotiation/indication
headers?
> For est, I tend to think that /.well-known/ is overused in general,
> because configuring a URL is usually adequate. But I can't hold a
If you need to co-locate a discovery API with an existing web service,
then this works. Of course, we should be using SRV or URI RRs for
discovery, but just using /.well-known/ at the domain apex is very
tempting, which is why it happens. If we don't want this, then we
should have an RFC like 6648 but for discovery protocols.
> strong position on a protocol that I barely know. [...]
Well, me too. I'm just guessing here that discovery was the driver
for using /.well-known/est.
Nico
--
