IETF Logo Mail Archive

[art] Call for Consensus: Re: On BCP 190

Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Fri, 02 August 2019 20:15 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 9A449120059 for <art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Aug 2019 13:15:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.68
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.68 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" 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 wzYSwG27Vg4g for <art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Aug 2019 13:15:24 -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 4B5201200E9 for <art@ietf.org>; Fri, 2 Aug 2019 13:15:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from MacBook-Pro.roach.at (99-152-146-228.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.146.228]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id x72KFJFa080690 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 2 Aug 2019 15:15:21 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nostrum.com; s=default; t=1564776922; bh=GVKwsQjdcbkfe5QfIeJRuW9USwMFNaBOvyXwi70lPMA=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=KdfqZAi1wirsGbpz/pQrUsxerdhmhwk6APUajzzlVEeA3mpG3SNSzOc0oF9QuT6SI 2AmBRRy6gUCOHH/CvX+lya82DAU7r6pu+KXocp5cHi7rRLZbZmK6EDscWEldJ17N4g h+8xkLJFIdMroiGrMnzKSTooMaMydduNIWUcqpNI=
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host 99-152-146-228.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.146.228] claimed to be MacBook-Pro.roach.at
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Jacob Hoffman-Andrews <jsha@letsencrypt.org>
Cc: ART Area <art@ietf.org>, Devon O'Brien <devon.obrien@gmail.com>
References: <58BF6171-03BB-4F83-940F-3A101EFDD67F@mnot.net> <CAN3x4Q=Jo1uBvfCG6CSrociYgdG+E4jq+4cB1txPjgboth2q9g@mail.gmail.com> <372FA049-7B33-4981-A0E0-41BD454CB770@mnot.net> <CAN3x4QmJsfx48MdhcBB+XWX+vfv=skSR2Z6kNPBWGVobvzNuFA@mail.gmail.com> <004601d5450d$62b33220$28199660$@acm.org> <CAN3x4Q=XR+=ugv6HEmOgsA6v64GkQ+4u-Hk+OBQ0Lp9jn-Cy=A@mail.gmail.com> <D154BA24-5027-4FAF-8779-CBA5533D24A1@mnot.net>
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Message-ID: <3000e948-14e6-80d2-e8e6-766d309c361c@nostrum.com>
Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2019 15:15:14 -0500
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: <D154BA24-5027-4FAF-8779-CBA5533D24A1@mnot.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/PgWsfzE_Sgpamykf3FBzlhHX22g>
Subject: [art] Call for Consensus: Re: 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: Fri, 02 Aug 2019 20:15:26 -0000

For the purposes of clearing my discuss, I intend to read the responses 
to Mark's message below as a reflection of consensus from the community. 
If you have thoughts on the topic, please weigh in on the ART-area 
mailing list no later than Friday, August 16th.

People who have participated in the discussion in TRANS are very much 
welcome to re-express their opinions in this thread. I'm also hoping 
that we get some input from other participants -- even if it's something 
as simple as "this sounds good to me" -- to make sure all relevant 
perspectives are taken into account.

Thanks!

/a

On 8/2/19 1:55 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> It sounds like you (collectively) want an exception in BCP190 still, correct?
>
> If so, I think we just need to craft some language about that for inclusion in the spec; I'd imagine it need only be a sentence or two about it. Then the AD(s) need to convince themselves that it reflects consensus.
>
> The underlying issue is the text in 2.3 of BCP190; I think the emerging consensus is that it's too strict, in that it can be read to preclude using a prefix approach with a MUST NOT, when in fact the potential harm to other applications / the Web overall is pretty small.
>
> Does anyone disagree with that?
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>> On 31 Jul 2019, at 2:10 pm, Jacob Hoffman-Andrews <jsha@letsencrypt.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 11:26 PM Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org> wrote:
>> The use of / in the path of URLs was supposed to
>>
>> be restricted to hierarchical data, and yet CT doesn’t
>> do that.
>>
>> http://masinter.blogspot.com/2019/05/on-nature-of-hierarchical-urls.html
>>
>>
>> CT and all prefix-using APIs do that, with a single level hierarchy. The domain owner specifies a prefix, ending with a "/". All of the URLs that are part of the API follow that prefix - they are subordinate in the hierarchy.
>>
>> Coming back to the main point: What remains in order to find consensus on this issue?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Jacob
> --
> Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
>
> _______________________________________________
> art mailing list
> art@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/art

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email