I took the time to read through the RFC (only 8 pages; pretty light by RFC standards). I tend to agree with Dave. The intent of "/.well-known/" seems to match our use case. With the exception of registering the name, I don't see what additional complexity it adds.
I imagine the vast majority of implementers are unlikely to care and will simply accept "use this string because the TAXII spec says so." It's possible some implementers who (like me, before digging into this) were ignorant of RFC 5785, and learn something new and understand why TAXII uses it. The implementers who see it and think "why didn't the TC just use /taxii ?" (just like the people, were we not to use /.well-known/taxii, who would think "why didn't the TC use /.well-known/taxii ?") aren't the people we should be trying to please; if someone's looking for things to criticize, I'm sure they'll find something. Using /.well-known/ does show at least some level of commitment to using other standards when they make sense; I think that's worth something. Long story short: I'm about a +0 on using .well-known. I'd prefer it, in the absence of a strong reason not to, but it's not something I feel strongly about either way. I'm about a 2 out of 10 on the scale here [1] (sorry for the language in the URL). Greg [1] http://blog.capwatkins.com/the-sliding-scale-of-giving-a-fuck
>
