Re: [art] Against BCP 190

Leif Johansson <leifj@mnt.se> Tue, 23 July 2019 15:29 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 08C13120402 for <art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 08:29:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 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] 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 wrzjSCaRC-Yf for <art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 08:29:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qt1-x833.google.com (mail-qt1-x833.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::833]) (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 2F43E1203CE for <art@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 08:29:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qt1-x833.google.com with SMTP id l9so42315310qtu.6 for <art@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 08:29:03 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mnt-se.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=to:references:from:openpgp:autocrypt:subject:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=WmwmFy+y1PyiOw3lIX06O/Eu3pb2aNf1KHsV7rC0cXE=; b=Ko1Jck30jr+FUN3vM9iSfP+t7ZbeZan3KHbIiUn336ptx83mmoWrNQz3wD9gc53417 ZB4qLq62XZpcNT6PMPNnVTu3pPLZ8PmGLl2xsXyatXFx1XUFjN1wNbYt7qFF4VM4lJwA J2DkPtzDvAEuJDmkRotNzqXoi66V9lm8u7ygZmu5zJAA4FXbjN805PY0MyZZUWOi88c4 mFYxSJ3levTHQE8H+jMPyHaHs1uUsj/M3yeosx7c58RXI67kgz2uec80Ed+1W5k98TKg No4gcnpTj0RwsJilCa3VWln+4E1iaUC8eEo7fD4bAxJ4P2dvp6kkoLguwbfmFALumKgR rfhQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:to:references:from:openpgp:autocrypt:subject :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=WmwmFy+y1PyiOw3lIX06O/Eu3pb2aNf1KHsV7rC0cXE=; b=VPnykYcgiK6g+rTAiMLsBN8JHmKT8X+WSIvG2AWJgysLtc/IOCftnnJFquUjutt4Ti 3rEqEj5GrGiIH8aqLHHbFvPoKH4IJD1+96A5T7iQ96lYJbcGH1k0TX+zqoJzbd6iTBIC em4csH5sHhcrSEIsjTF7gVnDUOuOCvPNInWftjvlPXpkzKChFNxqrJ9uwCAzRt2bnvVi yu4PMDY/h0eJn1zLSHxBJouLWJ7976j25bOBuGzMmUpTXD9A5RQUcy4cAYVuFvRu2/6v fmwXs7YJHabIf1MWRM1pjUEH6dnmBBmDWNFyp1r/LkZjwWW/XM9FrniKSgE1pDL9tqQK jC+Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXZG8WkqShz/McDTtU8bd/ezInGKYQ79Z9Trpq+QFYyJHcev5F0 /NfTRD+DRiqiCpsxoUr3+A7lzAAe
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqz3gfAwGGFswSb2BFPnwz4uRW2y8QpKik/+c0b1L/Ov6zwKF/8tsey6GDxNPOVvaMyo4QHyxA==
X-Received: by 2002:a0c:bd1f:: with SMTP id m31mr55614398qvg.54.1563895741938; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 08:29:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2001:67c:370:128:a8ff:b295:75a9:1614? ([2001:67c:370:128:a8ff:b295:75a9:1614]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id f132sm18307878qke.88.2019.07.23.08.29.01 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 23 Jul 2019 08:29:01 -0700 (PDT)
To: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>, 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>
From: Leif Johansson <leifj@mnt.se>
Openpgp: preference=signencrypt
Autocrypt: addr=leifj@mnt.se; prefer-encrypt=mutual; keydata= mQGiBD7DfnwRBADpIpOw6bXfx2Yo3vac/j5WzVcWNZKuiYc4uuFnBYxH8zTA5cdwytuOYNte cX1yrPgmObfPVU0EFktdBMFgLE5TNRUMeJZTmAl3QYDm8N32SeSUEb6GPFsUTGgxsCW3GVAo q6DBopKqhR9HT0+crQakbc7XkS4FjeBWiXjuNf/IqwCgyoa2Qfq8UdjbcH+DRGzPnRTeqzEE ALIEsCzDp4HQqXqqNLCoExbgmCrEHvnqFmilCHJVnyuY8LXmcpq2uwJaiIdsTqLeQ8WrMxWg mZc6F9QSdLP6MVZT3v+5OqOZMUDsu4nGom3HH+tG238vMSEF+klGdrI0wdscrY+28Oshjhqj 4FZxCwdNU9RTU8xQ9IoObiEo1yOHBADK9a5GhkLT+d2cb48orETGtG7i//HOnstouw/TmEUX reZPtT6wpIdN9Jf3W80GA6A34VEGA/I+/5e+9nFvINpLvEF2ghJBH+sWwQ8EXpo0M/yir9oG eJI7gpOHRj5Mq9uqFG0wcamInuWgbMP1cefjXusHbHyDFKr7ydWSsZHqXrQdTGVpZiBKb2hh bnNzb24gPGxlaWZqQG1udC5zZT6IYAQTEQIAIAUCSnC8wwIbIwYLCQgHAwIEFQIIAwQWAgMB Ah4BAheAAAoJEPCcfBbWzGZ3x8MAnimIMTFOH4LLfp8bQnSPWm6BQyA6AKCk4S46++PpqtTM 0wIZ+kuYaBtky7kCDQQ+w36FEAgAr1zK1qIIXmoeEqFulgFi17FRpSibNwwge9bkG2+IO7MO m4Ih+f4CRkqaP5U5diiWb4nyQc/Yqzf3TTSE+CH0ghvDCwfZHrzUsVl9t57S2RFKaQhDUUw3 lz0TgKN66z1IRnQEARuz9PFd96pIhLaJBOn0e55Cu5qqJVwGpst3+I3jqT/cxjymRxPz2O6R 9k/ZOOiOGROZYAjNHKcdoeBr7OaIHcPRCi1R8MBKE4HOK1SwaVvs26Fd2enixIOBmyFTkrue 3VgaAd3zrJauD0qa/u5y2kGEyFFJwNsKnoX0aCmNNIG+aKvnSCWfba8bmYOAsbxS2lo4MKmu DM0rrVyLhwADBQf/VzM77aviZ3Ir7qXj0uV/62wyrg8/5flXl8XjuATewD+hTaux1lg5LgPU 9cokMHYHrTsnp79nhEB9qOpsQLX+npae7a27x3zyqLP0V7neyKy1ycuBI9KU9B3ivgSMRlKR 91GcmUpRnKiSnxPYNtq018mY72YYHCpfAh0OOUA88bxbYIuF5cv9dYyOBhNEkI8xB1VOWev1 CPkPb0DwDABHdOBq9e0hT3OUOaat2JPwCEHU2NTGsYFuZRysq8xnxFgHd00+h2OJZ50UYVpB jDxaCj5gvHHFFnmfCLD5VqjEJGi4k2znZHg67i2pw0f5BSq8fsfdUML35LzL/aaZPMzlg4hG BBgRAgAGBQI+w36FAAoJEPCcfBbWzGZ3djcAnAxF3084vKlsRNGcyj/rn5lA4Q+nAKCnjZYX snFG51wbu8OI88aj3LJE5w==
Message-ID: <1e6e3567-59d8-b868-4917-603b848ae984@mnt.se>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2019 17:28:59 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.7.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <eb6485fa-d3dd-8eb9-7886-b17ef9d10f81@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/XazYuDMh6vRAbhqOW0sdMX0OTLo>
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 15:29:15 -0000


On 2019-07-23 08:32, Adam Roach wrote:
> On 7/23/19 01:44, Leif Johansson wrote:
>> Thank you Adam,
>>
>> This was a great summary for somebody like me who sorta heard about
>> the issue for the first time today.
>>
>> Your summary provokes a questions tho:
>>
>>> In this specific case, the IETF wrote down consensus around the general
>>> principles of stewardship for the URI namespace, and then a working
>>> group without charter to deal with that topic came to a decision
>>> contrary to that consensus.
>> Has there been any similar situations before involving BCP190 and how
>> where those issues resolved?
> 
> 
> There have been a number of similar situations involving BCP 190, at
> varying phases of document development. In my time on the IESG, I can
> recall roughly two cases in which draft authors contacted the ART area
> directors to ask advice while a specification was under development in a
> working group, and there have been probably as many that reached IESG
> evaluation before the issue was identified as blocking.
> 
> In the cases where the issue was discussed while still the document was
> under development, the documents were easily adapted to conform to the
> normative requirements of BCP 190. One of these discussions did form
> part of the impetus that eventually led to the revision of RFC 5785
> (which defined .well-known) by RFC 8615, as that discussion did turn up
> a desire in the community to relax some of the constraints that
> originally existed in RFC 5785 (including the one mentioned during
> today's ARTAREA meeting).
> 
> In the cases where the issue was only discovered in IESG review, the
> documents have gone back to their respective working groups for further
> discussion. Prior to the current conversation involving the TRANS
> document, the working groups whose documents were found to have BCP 190
> issues made the minimal protocol changes necessary to meet its
> requirements.
> 
> It's notable that discovering these issues earlier in the process
> universally had better outcomes than discovering them during IESG
> review. To that end, the IESG has begun the effort of compiling a list
> of technologies that are likely to require expert input if used outside
> the working groups in which core expertise resides. The final steps of
> this task are on my plate, and I hope to get to them shortly after I
> recover from the current face-to-face meeting. The hope is that we will
> be able to keep the chairs of various working groups apprised of this
> list of technologies, so that such expert input can be sought earlier in
> the process, when it is less likely to cause unwelcome surprises for
> working group participants.
> 
> /a
> 

Thank you, that is very helpful.

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.

In other words: what parts of the web will crash and burn as the result
of CT having an API that specifies a uri structure outside .well-known?

I'm sure there is a perfectly reasonable answer to that question. Maybe
this understanding is what the CT WG needs in order to get past this
issue??

	Cheers Leif