Re: [art] Against BCP 190

Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Tue, 23 July 2019 18:48 UTC

Return-Path: <adam@nostrum.com>
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 45D7C12083A for <art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 11:48:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.98
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.98 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nostrum.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 YNQ-4NifQUMl for <art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 11:48:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (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 6D74B12083B for <art@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 11:48:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Orochi.local ([196.52.21.201]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id x6NIm90c022202 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 23 Jul 2019 13:48:12 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nostrum.com; s=default; t=1563907694; bh=1EO4RJugmmB07wRx3e2b46D6JF4FnzVbcRF+GfXrf98=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=MsTH1D4v6cs4VUpfDhxGWfWLq5O6Pby3VKuSS4SfMyJds7iH2zyxLYtXYbVSMXKMt xprahF8cw4uW4iCgQ/XyNKJmIS71+ee1uSy52B9Vugvv8+1u0wJ+haIlMZVKug2Pw+ OqhLttko/YQDuW49ldaAdPaqeGagJr1Jk6pOiXKU=
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host [196.52.21.201] claimed to be Orochi.local
To: Leif Johansson <leifj@mnt.se>, art@ietf.org
References: <791b33b8-4696-f69c-aca3-8838b2caafd8@sectigo.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20190713054207.0bbd9b58@elandnews.com> <008901d5410d$90607b00$b1217100$@gmail.com> <529b1f23-75e7-c426-f884-8dd07825182d@nostrum.com> <f834b9cd-0dff-7725-a959-6514c22d3ae4@mnt.se> <eb6485fa-d3dd-8eb9-7886-b17ef9d10f81@nostrum.com> <1e6e3567-59d8-b868-4917-603b848ae984@mnt.se> <c8e5c099-fd38-e206-7145-81eb2b3d467a@nostrum.com> <ecc2a274-a698-ad19-2c8a-3385f98b02f1@mnt.se>
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Message-ID: <d34a5048-1d3a-8018-13eb-cb20d3492a9b@nostrum.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2019 14:48:09 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <ecc2a274-a698-ad19-2c8a-3385f98b02f1@mnt.se>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/NLLYFmcGCFFGWZpdyVAdPOk6vUY>
Subject: Re: [art] Against 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 18:48:19 -0000

On 7/23/19 12:06, Leif Johansson wrote:
>
> On 2019-07-23 17:46, Adam Roach wrote:
>> On 7/23/19 11:28, Leif Johansson wrote:
>>> I am having trouble articulating the sense of unease I am feeling
>>> over this issue...
>>>
>>> The best I can muster right now is this: Reading section 2.3 of BCP190
>>> I see nothing whatsoever that speaks to the interoperability concerns
>>> that motivate the normative language in that (or for that matter any
>>> other) section of BCP190.
>>
>> The purpose of BCP 190 has never been to provide advantages to protocol
>> designers. That is, in fact, the opposite of its purpose. The purpose of
>> BCP 190 is to provide protections to the URI namespace and the people
>> who own its governance (e.g., domain owners) against protocol designers.
>> It's effectively a restatement of the well-understood principle of
>> "don't squat on protocol codepoints," but spelled out in terms of URIs.
>>  From that perspective, it is always going to be vaguely adversarial to
>> protocol developers, in the same way that IANA registration policies
>> more strict than "First Come First Served" are: its job is to protect a
>> common resource against having parts of the URI namespace carved off for
>> the exclusive use of one protocol or another.
> In that case maybe this is just a matter of qualifying section 2.3 with
> something along the lines of "this does not apply if your entire domain
> is meant to do just one thing"


You're not the only person to suggest that, and maybe it's worth 
considering.

However.

As I've mentioned up-thread, the TRANS conversation has indicated that 
these origins are *not* single-purpose, so this proposal is somewhat 
unrelated.

I'd like to see the conversation around single-purpose origins happen, 
if we decide to revise BCP 190. But it would appear that the TRANS folks 
are in a hurry to reach a conclusion regarding their specific use case, 
so perhaps we should focus the discussion on that.

/a