IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Anima] Adam Roach's Discuss on draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra-22: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> Fri, 20 September 2019 13:39 UTC

Return-Path: <lear@cisco.com>
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 97CCF1201E5; Fri, 20 Sep 2019 06:39:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.501
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.501 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
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 E3M_TLYeYs_J; Fri, 20 Sep 2019 06:39:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-2.cisco.com (aer-iport-2.cisco.com [173.38.203.52]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 107DC12011C; Fri, 20 Sep 2019 06:39:37 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2299; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1568986778; x=1570196378; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc: to:references; bh=F8PvQAt0Jlbt9gtrIC78LsEcDRZanXexu/SE6RIbYtE=; b=IyPUixv6xZFSD1UFWLoLE0NNeZbDF978+rn4+TSXhh9Jyn4Xpk+P88L1 qtVgVibAoX7wRsIZTlonfr9/HNnfgMNnqSpNW1KifWaz0V0xmauDTWsnC 2EZPWCKsW9xWKF1+Km8gwFR7UiYJ4vMZTPnjLPqeAlOIekHs6BqdjqW8D 4=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 488
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0ADAAA/1YRd/xbLJq1lGQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQcBAQEBAQGBUwQBAQEBAQsBgwpTIBIqhCKIHGCIBSWZIoF7AgcBAQEJAwEBGAsMAQGEPwKDLDQJDgIDCQEBBAEBAQIBBQRthS0MhUoBAQEBAgEBASFLCwULCxgjBwICJzAGE4MiAYF7Dw+sNIEyhUyEbgoGgTQBgVCKUIF/gTgME4FOfj6CYQEBhGwygiYElgKXC4Isgi6BE5FJG5kmpCCDEQIEBgUCFYFSOIFYMxoIGxU7KgGCQT4SEBSCBohOhUE+AzCPPgEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.64,528,1559520000"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="17059871"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-4.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 20 Sep 2019 13:39:36 +0000
Received: from ams3-vpn-dhcp3639.cisco.com (ams3-vpn-dhcp3639.cisco.com [10.61.78.55]) by aer-core-4.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id x8KDdY9M006191 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 20 Sep 2019 13:39:34 GMT
From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
Message-Id: <A383E119-F2E8-4F7C-9905-8380F90F5A59@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_96F8A7A2-568C-49F0-AFF2-6867CBD31845"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha256"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2019 15:39:33 +0200
In-Reply-To: <CALaySJKEcP-rnfpgUwC-uhSvgVdXXQkf7sS+LFQ7-w55EwWBbw@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra@ietf.org, Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>, Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>, anima-chairs@ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, Toerless Eckert <tte+ietf@cs.fau.de>, anima@ietf.org
To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
References: <156282703648.15280.17739830959261983790.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <19180.1562875321@localhost> <CA+9kkMA0U5rKi_1NBg-0riK2Xsty2bc=itfqSD91zz1bcB6g_g@mail.gmail.com> <26415.1563303923@localhost> <CALaySJKEcP-rnfpgUwC-uhSvgVdXXQkf7sS+LFQ7-w55EwWBbw@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.61.78.55, ams3-vpn-dhcp3639.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: aer-core-4.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima/vDDwReA-EuO4S163cnD3c_eFom4>
Subject: Re: [Anima] Adam Roach's Discuss on draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra-22: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
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: Fri, 20 Sep 2019 13:39:41 -0000


> On 16 Jul 2019, at 21:29, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> wrote:
> 
>>> I would personally not suggest using IRIs here, given that the scheme
>>> (https) is expected to retrieve a resource at a well-known location and
>>> thus will always have to be mapped to a URI to do the retrieval (rather
>>> than used in a string comparison or something similar) .  RFC 5280,
>>> which this cites, actually goes through the steps pretty well, and I
>>> think the complexity there demonstrates the advantage for constrained
>>> devices of always using the URI form.
>> 
>> I have changed the references from IRI to URL, and the components from
>> iauthority to 'authority'.
> 
> I think the best thing for IETF documents is to use "URI" (rather than
> "URL"), and to cite RFC 3986.

And that really is what this is: it’s a URI.  Call them RESTful calls or call them something else but they look and smell quite RESTful to me, and REST requires URIs, and 3986 is a great reference.

Eliot


> 
> The W3C, via the WHATWG, is (re-)defining "URL", and we *could* cite
> that work.  That would not be my preference here.
> 
> Barry
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Anima mailing list
> Anima@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email