Adam Roach <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Adam Roach <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > I agree that we should strictly avoid synthesizing URLs in general,
>> > and should try to avoid .well-known URLs in particular. Sometimes
>> > you're forced to use .well-known (e.g., when there's literally no way
>> > to get a full URL to the client), but that doesn't seem to be the case
>> > here.
>>
>> Is it reasonable for different enforcements points to return different URLs
>> to different clients? If so, that solves much of the multi-tenancy problems,
>> and I guess I recant some of my previous message.
> Sure, either in a 3xx response; or, if we're using Link: relations, those
> URLs can vary based on the client. If you want to get fancy about it, you can
> even have your DHCP server hand out different URLs in the RFC7710
> field. There are a lot of ways to deal with multi-tenancy.
>> I'd still like to register a /.well-known value as a suggestion.
Adams asks "Why?"
I anticipate some not-yet-well-defined situations where the RFC7710 field can
not automatically be passed to a browser that has a human there.
For diagnostics and support service interactions.
--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature