RE: Last Call: draft-nottingham-site-meta (Defining Well-Known URIs) to Proposed Standard

["Thomson, Martin" <Martin.Thomson at andrew.com>]

This would be quite helpful - if a client modifies behaviour based on what it understands a server to "support", then this would facilitate detection of that support.

With respect to Eran's concerns, it's probably not necessary to roll the two concepts together.  A second document would let us resolve those concerns without affecting the immediate usefulness of the base well-known.

Along with that, is there any desire to attempt to register any examples in the registry?  Moving robots.txt and favicon.ico here seems logical.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: apps-discuss-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:apps-discuss-
> bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of Barry Leiba
> Sent: Tuesday, 20 October 2009 12:12 PM
> To: Mark Nottingham
> Cc: apps-discuss at ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-nottingham-site-meta (Defining Well-Known
> URIs) to Proposed Standard
> 
> > Do people find this interesting? To specify it, we'd just need to
> describe a
> > format (e.g., a space-separated list of tokens).
> >
> >> Depending on how the server is configured a query to
> >> http://example.com/.well-known/ might return the list of files in
> that
> >> directory. It might be nice to actually encourage that. The only
> downside I
> >> see is that it might make it easier for an attacker to find out what
> you run
> >> and know what to exploit, but without that the attacker could still
> play 20
> >> questions and find out.
> 
> I like it.  I understand Eran's issue, but I don't see the point in
> waiting before making the specification.
> 
> Barry
> _______________________________________________
> Apps-Discuss mailing list
> Apps-Discuss at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss