Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] draft-ietf-weirds-bootstrap-00 and our lawn -- feedback?

From: Darrel Miller <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2014 11:15:31 -0500

Andrew,

On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 8:11 AM, Andrew Newton <[email-masked]> wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 5:44 PM, Darrel Miller <[email-masked]> wrote:
>> As an example, this URL,
>> http://example.com/.well-known/rdap/ip/192.0.2.0/24 would be pain for
>> a few of the frameworks that I am familiar with as it is not possible
>> to have a slash as part of a parameter value.  Creating a routing that
>> would handle both the IP and CIDR parameters would be tricky.
>
> And yet there are some methods/frameworks that would have a problem
> doing as you suggest as well, so it's a tradeoff. As it stands, all
> RDAP lookups can be laid down on a file system. Your suggestion would
> remove that.
>

I'm not sure I understand the problem you are alluding to.  I'm
suggesting that servers get to choose whatever URI structure works for
them.  I can't imagine a server application implementation picking a
URI structure that it can't handle.  Would be pretty silly, no?

There is no reason that the home document can't be read from a file
system and contain templates that are compatible with file system
access.  Well, all except the search ones.  I imagine those would be
rather inefficient to implement as a file system.

Darrel

---

From: Andrew Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2014 12:11:15 -0500

> URI structure that it can't handle.  Would be pretty silly, no?

I was specifically addressing your idea of using the CIDR length as a
query parameter vs as part of the path.

With regards to templates, they have been discussed many times by the
WEIRDS wg and rejected as they complicate the clients and introduce an
extra round-trip. If the "get off my lawn" advice is to avoid URI
collisions then the current bootstrap method already accomplishes
this. On the other hand, if the advice is that URI templates MUST be
used to avoid collisions, then that is different and not what I have
heard previously.

-andy