No, in fact I don't. But this post wouldn't be of any help anyway. It feels like it's about nothing, there is no substance, just stating some obvious facts. Without examples that lead to some real recommendations, this whole expertise claimed by the author is of no use.
well-known is for programmatic access, it either namespaces something you’re told to look for (e.g. various types of domain markers) or it lets you discover a feature / endpoint.
In the latter case you just probe, for instance if you’re a password manager and you have a password for site A you hit A/.well-known/change-password and if they returns something you can surface a change password link to your user.
The one you found is for OIDC provider discovery (https://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-discovery-1_0.html#P...) so someone tells you they want to log in via Google, you hit that endpoint, and it lets you setup Google as an oidc provider rather without needing to hard-code providers. Even if you just want to support Google as a provider, you hit that and you get the entire configuration rather than have to hunt down the same information in the docs.
What RFC? The oidc discovery spec has an example, and for change-password it’s just a redirect. RFC 8615 is about the existence and management of the .well-know namespace, so examples don’t really make sense.
I spent 10 minutes searching for one in the article, in the RFC, in the wikipedia page, on google, to search for a .well-known example. Couldn't find one.
I did read one before while working with github oidc, and I did find it very useful.
What is it with technical documentations that go deep describing what it is in plenty words but refusing to give a single example? This far from the first case I've ran into either.
> Why discord domain verification instead of domain-verifications with a dynamic list on entries?
The TXT record itself is already a dynamic list of entries. It's far simpler and easier to iterate through the list and compare the start of each value with your search string until you find "discord domain verification" directly than it would be to do anything else.
Example:
;; ANSWER SECTION:
ycombinator.com. 300 IN TXT "openai-domain-verification=dv-QbhxxK0G0JK0dnyZ4YTsNAfw"
ycombinator.com. 300 IN TXT "v=spf1 include:_spf.google.com include:mailgun.org a:rsweb1-36.investorflow.com include:_spf.createsend.com include:servers.mcsv.net -all"
ycombinator.com. 300 IN TXT "MS=ms37374900"
ycombinator.com. 300 IN TXT "anthropic-domain-verification-0qe2ww=yK576oHdDgyTcXgkPfj1KXgGt"
ycombinator.com. 300 IN TXT "ZOOM_verify_2ndw8KZxSRa8PT8NmdyXvw"
ycombinator.com. 300 IN TXT "google-site-verification=KsI69Y_jEVkp4eXqSQ9R9gwxjIpZznvuvrus6UolB9Y"
ycombinator.com. 300 IN TXT "ca3-4861b957e83847c188e45d04ec314ee3"
ycombinator.com. 300 IN TXT "apple-domain-verification=WG0sP5Alm7N6h1Te"
ycombinator.com. 300 IN TXT "dropbox-domain-verification=asc63coma4mv"
ycombinator.com. 300 IN TXT "google-site-verification=GJKdQskycEclAGPua3yXB9m_nVhxbrsVps_y-t9SXV0"
ycombinator.com. 300 IN TXT "Wayback verify for support request 741082"
ycombinator.com. 300 IN TXT "google-site-verification=rivq8jKu6AADGtbbEzJhmOpcqq08B7QxIzXxYV8DtyU"
ycombinator.com. 300 IN TXT "rippling-domain-verification=a660f7a4ab77a3de"
"Domain-verifications" is an invitation for everyone else that might need it to use the same standard and convention. "Discord-domain-verification" is not, it's what feels like polluting the global namespace with the company name that might cease to exist in a few years.
At the very least, it should be "domain-verification-discord", "-google" and so on. Maybe even "-com.discord", "-com.google"? And the first part clearly standardized and registered, instead of one entity using "domain" and another one "site".
Why reinvent the wheel differently 50,000 times instead? I'll usually even prefer a badly designed, but standard, format/encoding over a NIH one from each company - it's just less friction in the end. Heck - include a common format for the hash key too, then it opens up doors to automating generation with new sites & automatically validating this config for any site following the common format.
The password-reset well-known endpoint is used by password managers to show a "Change password..." button in their interface, which magically links to the password change page described in that well-known file.
If the website implements it. What about email preferences? Removing account links? There are many use-cases you might want to redirect a user to, but having to make their own well known for it seems dumb instead of using a more generic one. I guess the more flexible it is, the harder adoption becomes as the usage within a spec might diverge, or it grows outside of the spec and becomes unofficial. So maybe password-reset is correct level of specification.
Anyway discord domain verification can tell in their onboarding docs to put it anywhere. It being well known does nothing. If there was a root level domain verification, then you might as well put it under that. But otherwise why go through a process?
It’s just easier for everybody to implement. Password manager opens https://<some-website>/.well-known/change-password in the user’s browser, it gets redirected to the actual page where password change form is located. You could make the password manager look it up in a link tree and then open a correct page, yes, but...
> I guess the more flexible it is, the harder adoption becomes
Yeah. If there is one account management related URL that password managers care about, it’s the change password page. You don’t really need to change email on your account that often, but it is probably a good idea to rotate your password once in a while. So I guess it’s a good idea to make it as easy as possible to adopt – which means just a single URL redirecting to another.
> If the website implements it.
That’s a good catch, though. I guess right now password managers would still have to make a “preflight” request just to see if /.well-known/change-password is implemented before showing it to the user. (But that can go away if most websites adopt it.)
> That’s a good catch, though. I guess right now password managers would still have to make a “preflight” request just to see if /.well-known/change-password is implemented before showing it to the user. (But that can go away if most websites adopt it.)
It’s not really a catch? Like robots.txt it’s just something you probe if you have the capabilities to use it. You can just cache the info afterwards.
Whoever decided it would be a good idea for ".well-known" to be a "hidden" directory is a complete fool. All it does is provide the opportunity for confusion, misconfiguration, skipped backups, missed git check-ins, forgotten updates and more. Literally the only people a folder like that is hidden from is the whoever is managing the web server.
Sure, if everyone knows what they're doing, it's not a problem. But we all know how long that assumption lasts.
I wish people would follow this, instead of coming up with new standards in the root namespace. "llms.txt" [1] comes to mind, for example.
Let's stop polluting the root of a domain!
[1] https://llmstxt.org/
LLMs.txt is also nonsense since it isn't adopted by any of the major AI players.
Google has recently added `llms.txt` to Chrome's Lighthouse check for agentic browsing (https://searchengineland.com/google-llms-txt-chrome-lighthou...), so adoption may be coming. Admittedly, I put more faith in
that I copied from Gwern.net. This convention is discoverable (just read the HTML) and naturally adapts to any website size and structure.I have created an `llms.txt` for my website anyhow. I use a fixed LLM prompt to generate it from the internal links in `index.md`.
Giving a markdown version of a page seems like an interesting choice instead of just embedding a schema marked up one
Every page on code.claude.com has a markdown version available by just appending ".md", and Claude Code knows about it. E.g:
https://code.claude.com/docs/en/overview and
https://code.claude.com/docs/en/overview.md
The same could be said of robots.txt
And anything else that might tell them not to access something.
No, in fact I don't. But this post wouldn't be of any help anyway. It feels like it's about nothing, there is no substance, just stating some obvious facts. Without examples that lead to some real recommendations, this whole expertise claimed by the author is of no use.
The point of the post was that you need to add robots.txt (or similar) because it's a thing, and also tell us where they are.
> add a robots.txt
Which bots will then ignore.
How well-known are those URIs though? :-\
There's an interesting list on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Well-known_URI#List_of_well-kn...
Not one of them links to the actual well-known resource, only pdf specifications. And several I picked randomly leads to dead ends.
Here's one I could find: https://accounts.google.com/.well-known/openid-configuration
But how does one even find this?
well-known is for programmatic access, it either namespaces something you’re told to look for (e.g. various types of domain markers) or it lets you discover a feature / endpoint.
In the latter case you just probe, for instance if you’re a password manager and you have a password for site A you hit A/.well-known/change-password and if they returns something you can surface a change password link to your user.
The one you found is for OIDC provider discovery (https://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-discovery-1_0.html#P...) so someone tells you they want to log in via Google, you hit that endpoint, and it lets you setup Google as an oidc provider rather without needing to hard-code providers. Even if you just want to support Google as a provider, you hit that and you get the entire configuration rather than have to hunt down the same information in the docs.
Thank you, that it is part of OIDC provider discovery spec explains a lot.
That said, I still find it very bizzare that it's so hard to find a tangible example to see how it is in practice.
The rfc has none. Another spec including the use of it has none. In the end only completed service provider/implementers show it.
Before programmatic access happens, it needs to be written by a human. Yet the whole thing feels so human-unfriendly.
Perhaps I am biased robots.txt sets a high bar on how easy it is to find and work with?
What RFC? The oidc discovery spec has an example, and for change-password it’s just a redirect. RFC 8615 is about the existence and management of the .well-know namespace, so examples don’t really make sense.
A JWKS is defined at /.well-known/jwks.json
It's a JSON array of public keys which you can use to validate a JWT which is what an OIDC token is.
Making it an array means you can rotate keys whenever but the validator is typically caching the public keys.
https://www.hanko.io/blog/understanding-jwks
Actually... found it https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6749
And here's a PHP implementation that is perfect. https://github.com/thephpleague/oauth2-client
I spent 10 minutes searching for one in the article, in the RFC, in the wikipedia page, on google, to search for a .well-known example. Couldn't find one.
I did read one before while working with github oidc, and I did find it very useful.
What is it with technical documentations that go deep describing what it is in plenty words but refusing to give a single example? This far from the first case I've ran into either.
They are collected at this registry: https://www.iana.org/assignments/well-known-uris/well-known-...
I agree. I was hoping for a few positive examples, but didn't see any. The only one I know of is the OIDC discovery endpoint.
Another one that is emerging is the A2A agent card https://a2a-protocol.org/latest/topics/agent-discovery/#1-we...
I would say acme-challenge is one of the most used ones. How else would one get SSL certificates today
DNS TXT challenge for example. Also better because you can get wildcard certs.
Why are they so specific?
Why password-reset instead of a more generic link tree?
Why discord domain verification instead of domain-verifications with a dynamic list on entries?
Seems like a waste of time. I would just define my own spec outside of well known for my use case.
> Why discord domain verification instead of domain-verifications with a dynamic list on entries?
The TXT record itself is already a dynamic list of entries. It's far simpler and easier to iterate through the list and compare the start of each value with your search string until you find "discord domain verification" directly than it would be to do anything else.
Example:
"Domain-verifications" is an invitation for everyone else that might need it to use the same standard and convention. "Discord-domain-verification" is not, it's what feels like polluting the global namespace with the company name that might cease to exist in a few years.
At the very least, it should be "domain-verification-discord", "-google" and so on. Maybe even "-com.discord", "-com.google"? And the first part clearly standardized and registered, instead of one entity using "domain" and another one "site".
Why?
Why reinvent the wheel differently 50,000 times instead? I'll usually even prefer a badly designed, but standard, format/encoding over a NIH one from each company - it's just less friction in the end. Heck - include a common format for the hash key too, then it opens up doors to automating generation with new sites & automatically validating this config for any site following the common format.
> discord domain verification
That’s on Discord. They’re not in the registry: https://www.iana.org/assignments/well-known-uris/well-known-...
> Why password-reset instead of a more generic link tree?
[edit: answered in more detail in a sibling thread https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48596286]
Your own spec wouldn't be used by anyone else.
The password-reset well-known endpoint is used by password managers to show a "Change password..." button in their interface, which magically links to the password change page described in that well-known file.
If the website implements it. What about email preferences? Removing account links? There are many use-cases you might want to redirect a user to, but having to make their own well known for it seems dumb instead of using a more generic one. I guess the more flexible it is, the harder adoption becomes as the usage within a spec might diverge, or it grows outside of the spec and becomes unofficial. So maybe password-reset is correct level of specification.
Anyway discord domain verification can tell in their onboarding docs to put it anywhere. It being well known does nothing. If there was a root level domain verification, then you might as well put it under that. But otherwise why go through a process?
It’s just easier for everybody to implement. Password manager opens https://<some-website>/.well-known/change-password in the user’s browser, it gets redirected to the actual page where password change form is located. You could make the password manager look it up in a link tree and then open a correct page, yes, but...
> I guess the more flexible it is, the harder adoption becomes
Yeah. If there is one account management related URL that password managers care about, it’s the change password page. You don’t really need to change email on your account that often, but it is probably a good idea to rotate your password once in a while. So I guess it’s a good idea to make it as easy as possible to adopt – which means just a single URL redirecting to another.
> If the website implements it.
That’s a good catch, though. I guess right now password managers would still have to make a “preflight” request just to see if /.well-known/change-password is implemented before showing it to the user. (But that can go away if most websites adopt it.)
> That’s a good catch, though. I guess right now password managers would still have to make a “preflight” request just to see if /.well-known/change-password is implemented before showing it to the user. (But that can go away if most websites adopt it.)
It’s not really a catch? Like robots.txt it’s just something you probe if you have the capabilities to use it. You can just cache the info afterwards.
I'm not sure I like `https://domain.com/.well-known/robots.txt` any better frankly
Whoever decided it would be a good idea for ".well-known" to be a "hidden" directory is a complete fool. All it does is provide the opportunity for confusion, misconfiguration, skipped backups, missed git check-ins, forgotten updates and more. Literally the only people a folder like that is hidden from is the whoever is managing the web server.
Sure, if everyone knows what they're doing, it's not a problem. But we all know how long that assumption lasts.