[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Captive-portals] API access and .well-known



On 1/18/18 4:18 PM, Michael Richardson 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.
Why?

/a