Re: [art] Against BCP 190

[Leif Johansson <[e-mail]>]

On 2019-07-23 17:42, Melinda Shore wrote:
> On 7/23/19 11:28 AM, Leif Johansson wrote:
>> 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?
> 
> The discussions in trans have focused on the question of the
> impact of BCP 190 on CT and there's been a lack of clarity on
> the question of the impact of the CT namespace on the rest of
> the world.  That is to say, CT log servers run in very narrow,
> specialized spaces and it's not really clear that there is
> potential, in practice, for the sorts of conflicts BCP 190 is
> intended to prevent.  So, we've got a situation in which there
> are considerable practical impacts of BCP 190 on the CT protocol
> in both design and implementation, and any apparent impacts of
> the CT protocol using a non-compliant namespace on the rest of
> the world appear to be at best theoretical.

Oh I completely agree and I think that is clear to everyone who
has looked at the issue.

However there must be a reason the IESG is pushing back hard on
this principle - I hope its not just "but BCP190 has consensus"
because that is just about whose consensus is bigger... not a
good place to be.

Therefore I'm working on the assumption that there are actual
larger interoperability issues hiding in BCP190 that leads the
IESG.

I'm really curious as to what they are.

	Cheers Leif