Re: [Anima] [Last-Call] Post approval change on draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra (fwd) Mark Nottingham: Re: [Last-Call] Post approval change on draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra

Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ca> Mon, 21 September 2020 16:16 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: anima@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: anima@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DDD63A09EF for <anima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Sep 2020 09:16:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QewtMMp8fdV7 for <anima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Sep 2020 09:16:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B591A3A0A29 for <anima@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Sep 2020 09:16:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EF21389B2 for <anima@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Sep 2020 11:55:07 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id T5sG9DndKz3M for <anima@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Sep 2020 11:55:03 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (unknown [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2:103c:9eff:fecb:2eac]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E763389AA for <anima@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Sep 2020 11:55:03 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94CCA721 for <anima@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Sep 2020 12:16:24 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ca>
To: anima@ietf.org
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="==-=-="
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2020 12:16:24 -0400
Message-ID: <19427.1600704984@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima/7ug9vv_rNfPt5VRz0nLtu6uBL40>
Subject: Re: [Anima] [Last-Call] Post approval change on draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra (fwd) Mark Nottingham: Re: [Last-Call] Post approval change on draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra
X-BeenThere: anima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Autonomic Networking Integrated Model and Approach <anima.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/anima>, <mailto:anima-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/anima/>
List-Post: <mailto:anima@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:anima-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima>, <mailto:anima-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2020 16:16:51 -0000

--- Begin Message ---
Hi Michael (et al),

I noticed two things about that diff:

1. 8.3.1 says 'IANA is asked to change the registration of "est" to include RFC7030 and this document.' I don't see any use of the `est` well-known URI in this document; why is that update necessary?

2. 8.3.2 asks for the BRSKI registry to be a sub-registry of the well-known URI registry. I'm concerned that if adopted as common practice, this will make crowd the well-known URI registry with a number of application-specific sub-registries. As such my (fairly strong) preference would be for this registry to be separate from it.

Cheers,



> On 17 Sep 2020, at 1:08 am, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> wrote:
> 
> 
> Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net> wrote:
>> having to assume EST. Therefore the above BRSKI diff (and BRSKI-AE) propose
>> to introduce a /.well-known/brski registry.
> 
> I believe that I ran the text by Mark, who I believe is the /.well-known
> expert reviewer.  I believe that he said that it looked good, but it would be
> great if Mark could confirm that I got it right.
> 
>>> Dear ANIMA WG
>>> 
>>> This email starts a 2 week call for consensus to modify draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra
>>> such that new well-known URIs introduced by BRSKI will use a /.well-known/brski
>>> prefix instead of the pre-existing /.well-known/est prefix.
>>> 
>>> The proposed change can be seen at the following rfcdiff URL:
>>> 
>>> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra-43&url2=draft-richardson-anima-brski-renamed-00
>>> 
>>> This consensus call will end on September 14, 23:59 UTC
>>> This consensus call is ONLY for said change and not for any other aspects of BRSKI.
> 
> Existing implementers have agreed to the change.
> 
> --
> Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
>           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
> 
> 
> 
> 

--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
    > I noticed two things about that diff:

    > 1. 8.3.1 says 'IANA is asked to change the registration of "est" to
    > include RFC7030 and this document.' I don't see any use of the `est`
    > well-known URI in this document; why is that update necessary?

Previously, all of the things in this document were /.well-known/est/FOOBAR.
They are now, /.well-known/brski/FOOBAR.
IANA has actually already acted on section 8.3.1, btw.
We need them to undo that.

I guess that section 8.3.1 should be removed, which I'll do.
I guess since the WG has passed this change, I should push the new version.

How about if I change it to:

          <t>
            IANA is asked to change the registration of "est" to now only
            include RFC7030 and no longer this document.


    > 2. 8.3.2 asks for the BRSKI registry to be a sub-registry of the
    > well-known URI registry. I'm concerned that if adopted as common
    > practice, this will make crowd the well-known URI registry with a
    > number of application-specific sub-registries. As such my (fairly
    > strong) preference would be for this registry to be separate from it.

So rather than asking for a sub-registry, you'd like us to just establish a
registry.

          <t>
            IANA is requested to create a new Registry entitled: "BRSKI well-known URIs".


--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide




--
last-call mailing list
last-call@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
--- End Message ---