Adam Roach <a...@nostrum.com> 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. I'd still like to register a /.well-known value as a suggestion. -- Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Captive-portals mailing list Captive-portals@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/captive-portals
