Defining Well-Known Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs)
RFC 5785

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 05 and is now closed.

Search Mailarchive

(Jari Arkko) Yes

(Lisa Dusseault) Yes

Alexey Melnikov Yes

Comment (2009-11-22 for -)
I voted Yes for this document, but please consider if the following comments are worth addressing:

1.  Introduction

   While there are several ways to access per-resource metadata (e.g.,
   HTTP headers, WebDAV's PROPFIND [RFC4918]), the perceived overhead
   associated with them often precludes their use in these scenarios.

I would personally like to see an expanded version of this statement.
In particular "perceived overhead for whom" and why is it perceived.

3.  Well-Known URIs

   Note that this specification also does not define a format or media-
   type for the resource at located at "/.well-known/" and clients

I think the first "at" should be dropped.

   should not expect a resource to exist at that location.

5.1.  The Well-Known URI Registry

   Before a period of 14 days has passed, the Designated Expert(s) will
   either approve or deny the registration request, communicating this
   decision both to the review list and to IANA.

Personally I prefer to have 2 periods - the expect review period and the maximum review period after which the requester can complain. This is what 
I used in one of my documents (6 weeks is the upper bound in this case):

   Expert Reviewer should strive for timely reviews.  Expert Reviewer
   should take no longer than 6 weeks to make and announce the decision,
   or notify the mailing list that more time is required.

   Decisions (or lack of) made by an Expert Reviewer can be appealed to
   the IESG.

5.1.1.  Registration Template

   Change controller:  For standards-track RFCs, state "IETF".  For
      other open standards, give the name of the publishing body (e.g.,
      ANSI, ISO, ITU, W3C, etc.).  A postal address, home page URI,
      telephone and fax numbers may also be included.

Question: can a new well-known URI be registered by an individual person and not an SDO?
I.e. is it Ok for a reviewer to say "you are not an SDO, publish an RFC or go away"?

(Ron Bonica) No Objection

(Ross Callon) No Objection

(Ralph Droms) No Objection

(Lars Eggert) No Objection

Comment (2009-12-02 for -)
Section 5.1., paragraph 4:
>    Registration requests should be sent to the [TBD] mailing
>    list for review and comment, with an appropriate subject (e.g.,
>    "Request for well-known URI: example").

  I question the need to involve a list here - do we really expect such
  a volume of requests? I think normal Expert Review is sufficient.

(Pasi Eronen) No Objection

(Adrian Farrel) No Objection

Comment (2009-11-30 for -)
Section 1
You might usefully include a reference for the Robots Exclusion Protocol

(Russ Housley) No Objection

(Cullen Jennings) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Tim Polk) No Objection

(Dan Romascanu) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Robert Sparks) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Magnus Westerlund) No Objection