Summary
.well-known endpoints[].url and tea-server-info.rootUrl are still format: uri with no HTTPS / component restrictions. That undercuts #276’s TLS and credential-boundary rules if a conforming base can be http://, and it makes /v{version}/… appending ambiguous (userinfo, query, fragment, trailing slash).
Follow-up to #276 / #275. Related but separate from #282. Independent of #261 TEI syntax.
Proposed
Require absolute HTTPS base URLs with no userinfo, query, fragment, or trailing slash (well-known url and discovery rootUrl).
Optional: explicit hostname checks per RFC 6125 section 6; same “no TEA token to external URLs” sentence on release-distribution.url / signatureUrl (already stated for artifact formats / redirects).
My question
For 1.0: should absolute HTTPS base URLs be required?
If yes, include the TLS-identity and release-distribution riders in the same PR, defer them, or drop as non-blocking?
Summary
.well-knownendpoints[].urlandtea-server-info.rootUrlare stillformat: uriwith no HTTPS / component restrictions. That undercuts #276’s TLS and credential-boundary rules if a conforming base can behttp://, and it makes/v{version}/…appending ambiguous (userinfo, query, fragment, trailing slash).Follow-up to #276 / #275. Related but separate from #282. Independent of #261 TEI syntax.
Proposed
Require absolute HTTPS base URLs with no userinfo, query, fragment, or trailing slash (well-known
urland discoveryrootUrl).Optional: explicit hostname checks per RFC 6125 section 6; same “no TEA token to external URLs” sentence on
release-distribution.url/signatureUrl(already stated for artifact formats / redirects).My question
For 1.0: should absolute HTTPS base URLs be required?
If yes, include the TLS-identity and
release-distributionriders in the same PR, defer them, or drop as non-blocking?