Re: [Anima] [Last-Call] Post approval change on draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Tue, 22 September 2020 01:21 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 5843F3A0FB3 for <anima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Sep 2020 18:21:52 -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 s2EIEVAGLgPX for <anima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Sep 2020 18:21:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relay.sandelman.ca (relay.cooperix.net [176.58.120.209]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4C7563A0FAF for <anima@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Sep 2020 18:21:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dooku.sandelman.ca (CPE788a207f397a-CMbc4dfb96bb50.sdns.net.rogers.com [174.116.121.43]) by relay.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D860F1F450 for <anima@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Sep 2020 01:21:48 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by dooku.sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id 419C91A01AF; Mon, 21 Sep 2020 21:21:47 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: anima@ietf.org
In-reply-to: <3BDE3953-847F-43C3-8942-47D5A5C766B9@mnot.net>
References: <CAHw9_iK85gYnPYt4y6qzvYnbXgOD8W88UZ9t_TaP=_M9kvvCjA@mail.gmail.com> <15446.1600268896@localhost> <CA32E07A-D252-40B5-8C07-3A5AD4BB0812@mnot.net> <19073.1600704928@localhost> <3BDE3953-847F-43C3-8942-47D5A5C766B9@mnot.net>
Comments: In-reply-to Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> message dated "Tue, 22 Sep 2020 11:05:49 +1000."
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2020 21:21:47 -0400
Message-ID: <205860.1600737707@dooku>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima/B323lwP5AAs-Xmff6w6JBI2Y60g>
Subject: Re: [Anima] [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: Tue, 22 Sep 2020 01:21:52 -0000

Just CC'ing the WG on Mark's feedback.  He is the .well-known expert reviewer.
His comments are implemented in -44.

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
    >> On 22 Sep 2020, at 2:15 am, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >> 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.

    > Makes sense.

    >>> 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".

    > That'd be fine.

    > Cheers / thanks,


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

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

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-