Re: [art] On BCP 190

Leif Johansson <leifj@mnt.se> Tue, 23 July 2019 22:25 UTC

Return-Path: <leifj@mnt.se>
X-Original-To: art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D759120991 for <art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 15:25:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mnt-se.20150623.gappssmtp.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 ueDcruMocqgA for <art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 15:25:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qt1-x82b.google.com (mail-qt1-x82b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::82b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DFF821209B9 for <art@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 15:25:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qt1-x82b.google.com with SMTP id x22so38587530qtp.12 for <art@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 15:25:06 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mnt-se.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=vxcDxicSt2TmpZagrx6aDGMftMChlKigK9CucJ/5JM8=; b=fZlYNadP2m5Wm+h2GBp8XM2krOK47K/DOX86fgBDF9fjQ/hiWiJ2iPtD0bc8JLPXNG N/rMy21y2iYNqVK9eatJxjBZqp8YVFaSaJA0AzkhfmIXHqyF5HVSk2aQoL6eHHOHEPoR olBisgQoeSAYV0q4Vpq+CeN5XDtM6TYHwVRL6TYVf4yenWgYcpnXWsdpxzytFBw3hgGQ eRrqv1JprnHrkn4R41Dbw/hY/Eu8iO5FFFqm7PRGTdyPQtbHSE6mvE4U5d5X7J83MWRz uuRj/fhnoGFvOiwqA0OVJK5dhRrznyYzCP7I7FzOic5rSvYX5Yas36Bqwe4K33rWa4pk z8yQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=vxcDxicSt2TmpZagrx6aDGMftMChlKigK9CucJ/5JM8=; b=KqLVK2IZFeA64M5es5uGjT4V7qk3kueXE932K0+t2a2FHxsp07p+TnN5EmLYRz37f1 ftQ67CJa7P9OqVuGAG5HmEoMzVdmlCVVv49PBSSSdI2UjPu2qLdYTuavBiWk74ZQ036p 0MTOzgVvii3Lq2MLsFuu9wyOa0I0uii63Xhpcbd1ZCWNYSfOezuKt4gK99Fs4nMadlwp pgGgLNivJ6f3rLdYa4lUGCX3e/6GBuOiIBoeGE/b+WZAVZKHY0DsGcju4j/JIWOpvhpU 3h1Vr8XjUD2XSZZxjOcSkvyP36dXftO0efGu9GW+CIkFnfb7ViLy17quJpuLGT6qMgCx GP/A==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVf56gCNEEOWFg8K+9vTm29NvWRZvG1ifY6Cl1J+cZ8YNhIikYU b780xF4tlcu7QFXb2ac914j0auB2
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxkQogs+sZ6MxLIkCeTCxsip8B0U2bSPxxOevFUxeAXDUWci086L/93hxMAyt5uKMB5S76BMw==
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:5346:: with SMTP id d6mr53700465qto.39.1563920705807; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 15:25:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2001:67c:1232:144:d911:3dae:2030:1fcd? ([2001:67c:1232:144:d911:3dae:2030:1fcd]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id j6sm19615653qkf.119.2019.07.23.15.25.05 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 23 Jul 2019 15:25:05 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Leif Johansson <leifj@mnt.se>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (16F203)
In-Reply-To: <750cb62e-1256-4e3f-a072-438f6d468f2d@nostrum.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2019 18:25:04 -0400
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, art@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <9847EF63-6BDE-4746-81C7-EA446FC5938E@mnt.se>
References: <58BF6171-03BB-4F83-940F-3A101EFDD67F@mnot.net> <2ba63f8c-0f61-bd59-fbca-9d782a0d9818@mnt.se> <F81E44F7-7B51-4C68-9470-E94EFD2D4102@mnot.net> <e9780f61-681f-a5d9-7b06-549a2e652f5f@mnt.se> <42C8475A-6DFE-4DC6-B608-8159B90F9CDB@mnot.net> <55E6A246-4D77-44DA-AF2B-AA9C42FACC2F@mnt.se> <750cb62e-1256-4e3f-a072-438f6d468f2d@nostrum.com>
To: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/82pTeq3lp6Cj_7TVfeSF4NVqAdM>
Subject: Re: [art] On BCP 190
X-BeenThere: art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Applications and Real-Time Area Discussion <art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/art>, <mailto:art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/art/>
List-Post: <mailto:art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/art>, <mailto:art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2019 22:25:16 -0000


Skickat från min iPhone

> 23 juli 2019 kl. 17:49 skrev Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>:
> 
> Leif --
> 
> It seems to me, watching this conversation, that you and Mark are talking past each other. While I understand the points he is making, I'm having a hard time following your line of logic given that BCP 190 does, in fact, codify practices that have largely been applied to URI usage in the past (albeit only in an ad-hoc fashion prior to its publication). It's done a pretty reasonable job of keeping protocols from co-opting parts of the URI space so far, and will ostensibly continue to do so into the future.
> 

I read Mark saying that there are 1000s of APIs that get it wrong. That made me ask if (and if so you you know) BCP190 is actually working.


> Perhaps you could take a fresh run at explaining what you think the problem is?
> 



> /a
> 
>> On 7/23/19 17:24, Leif Johansson wrote:
>> 
>> Skickat från min iPhone
>> 
>>> 23 juli 2019 kl. 16:34 skrev Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>:
>>> 
>>> Please re-read; it’s to prevent future problems.
>> To me that is the definition of aspiration: you hope that you will alter behaviour in the future.
>> 
>> How do you measure success?
>> 
>> Cheers Leif
>> 
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>> 
>>>> On 23 Jul 2019, at 4:28 pm, Leif Johansson <leifj@mnt.se> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> On 2019-07-23 21:54, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 23 Jul 2019, at 3:34 pm, Leif Johansson <leifj@mnt.se> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Hi Mark,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> In short, I'm not concerned about *this* IETF specification violating the BCP, I'm concerned when there are 1,000 specs that do so (which may not be that far away, given how many specs are being built on top of HTTP).
>>>>>> Playing devils advocate: how is BCP190 then a BCP? I understand there
>>>>>> may be an argument for the B and the C but if there are really 1000s
>>>>>> of APIs that does what BCP190 say you MUST NOT, then in what sense
>>>>>> does this represent Best Current /Practice/?
>>>>> There aren't; I was speaking about the future.
>>>> 
>>>> Ah so the BCP designation is aspirational? I personally think thats a
>>>> problematic use of BCPs
>>>> 
>>>>   Cheers Leif
>> _______________________________________________
>> art mailing list
>> art@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/art
> 
>