Adam Roach via Datatracker <[email protected]> wrote: > ยง5: >> MASA URI is "https://"; iauthority "/.well-known/est".
> This doesn't make sense: iauthority is a component of IRIs, not of URIs.
In
> URIs this is simply an "authority." It's not simply a terminology
distinction:
> converting from an iauthority to an authority requires idna encoding.
Please
> consult with an IRI expert (which I do not consider myself to be) to work
out
> the proper terminology and procedures here. If you need help finding an
> expert, please let me know and I'll track someone down for you.
okay, this one is my fault.
I agree, we should have consulted an expert. I thought I was being clever.
Please, can you find us an expert, if you think we should go this direction.
I thought IRIs were supersets of URIs, and that all URIs were IRIs, and the
only reason to RFC3987 instead of RFC3986 is because one might have legacy
systems that couldn't handle idna. Since I thought we had a greenfield here,
I figured we could specify the superset.
I can easily make this "authority" and RFC3986.
Please advise.
Some background: this text is slightly new, and is the result of interop
failures. I had placed "https://example.com/"; in the certificate, while
another implementer placed "example.com:9443/.well-known/est" in, assuming that
"https:" was naturally implied.
So, we disagreed what the base was, and we then agreed that there were
sometimes reasons to include the the entire URL, but that less is better.
We then looked for what the term for the "hostname:port" part was, and
found 3986 and 3987.
--
] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [
] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | IoT architect [
] [email protected] http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on rails [
--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
