Re: [apps-discuss] [IANA #900093] Re: draft-vesely-authmethod-dnswl

Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Sat, 16 April 2016 15:20 UTC

Return-Path: <vesely@tana.it>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA01912DA3D for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 16 Apr 2016 08:20:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.298
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.298 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=tana.it
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 SHkNxzL6ylKq for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 16 Apr 2016 08:20:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wmail.tana.it (wmail.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6F30312D9FC for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Sat, 16 Apr 2016 08:20:56 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=beta; t=1460820052; bh=kQQrA5Ott3LdFxpdPTu/VJi8YTa/GV20dUkPjpwxbAo=; l=1920; h=To:References:Cc:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=sJdf//R/Gzh64QZNs6eO5VUpsoiUQ3FjBDZeiZunTB/cWSqcFNnxUhc/uOveOuFWn ldU8u6z+bNQJTpkkQRGvzMbYh7pRyfaguWoKer7/d4fUOUNePzoapkum7t8lW/hGfk bEbB0Y4KZGnVldrp1ildSEIkNMDEZ5/E56BSJzxE=
Authentication-Results: tana.it; auth=pass (details omitted)
Received: from [172.25.197.88] (pcale.tana [172.25.197.88]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 uXDGrn@SYT0/k) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPA; Sat, 16 Apr 2016 17:20:52 +0200 id 00000000005DC050.0000000057125854.0000099C
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
References: <CAL0qLwaGuz-CBMke3BhjfLwn7Bt213XobrOUe3_hAqxMZw+PKg@mail.gmail.com> <57025643.7040101@tana.it> <CAL0qLwb_8RN0w03N9P5xQsoC2aJppYTaBidmX_uuvioCJ6CaQg@mail.gmail.com> <5702946B.30307@tana.it> <CAL0qLwZAuVpWj-oDN6cyKiHmnJgpGdtyHKwMfz98v5odBOHTvw@mail.gmail.com> <570E8985.7080708@tana.it> <CAL0qLwa0FqQty+u3eDNQm7MJ_4KrveiyB80ukX3PZmpRARrnfg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Message-ID: <57125854.2030307@tana.it>
Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2016 17:20:52 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/38.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAL0qLwa0FqQty+u3eDNQm7MJ_4KrveiyB80ukX3PZmpRARrnfg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/apps-discuss/-xjrvj-QY044GB708oEQwy64TDg>
Cc: Matthias Leisi <matthias@leisi.net>, AppsAWG <apps-discuss@ietf.org>, iana-prot-param-comment@iana.org
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] [IANA #900093] Re: draft-vesely-authmethod-dnswl
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/apps-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2016 15:20:58 -0000

On Wed 13/Apr/2016 20:15:04 +0200 Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 11:01 AM, Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> wrote:
> 
>> I still don't think it is worth publishing the I-D, but maybe IETF's list
>> archives can be considered permanent documents, which can be referenced by
>> items added after Expert Review, no?
> 
> That seems... unconventional at least.  I would rather see something
> published.  Going via the ISE, if you're worried about the slog through the
> IETF Stream, seems like a perfectly viable option.

I think that is called RFC Required, not Expert Review.

>>> I had a look at your -04.  Thank you for addressing most of my comments 
>>> and suggestions; it's certainly better.  A few non-editorial issues
>>> remain:
>>>
>>> - The original ptype.property list has not been updated as discussed,
>>> so the main problem remains.
>>
>> The "dns" ptype has its own table there.  Added a more text.  I don't think
>> this is a useless ptype, since so much stuff is DNS-based...
> 
> I explained in my previous replies why I don't think "dns" is a viable
> choice for a ptype.  I never said it was "useless", but it doesn't fit
> within the framework described by RFC7601 or its antecedents.  I proposed
> an alternative that I claim does fit.  Have you rejected it?

Yes, I rejected your proposal to use policy.zone=lists.dnswl.example, because
it disagrees with the only existing implementation.  When that was discussed,
the syntax dns.zone=lists.dnswl.example was chosen because a DNSxL is a zone in
the DNS, according to, say, RFC5782.  Nobody realized that "dns" is not a valid
RFC7601 ptype (and I still don't understand why).

Since I'm neither the maintainer of the existing implementation, nor the only
user of that feature, I cannot change the syntax arbitrarily.  Making a
registration that disagrees with the terrain seems pointless to me.

Ale