IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Fri, 02 August 2019 20:52 UTC

Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.org>
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 BB04812013D for <art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Aug 2019 13:52:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.198
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.198 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 oqQpOYyU7JSa for <art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Aug 2019 13:52:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.50.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F3DB1120134 for <art@ietf.org>; Fri, 2 Aug 2019 13:51:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.217.110] (p548DCCB9.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.141.204.185]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 460fV62DljzyQ4; Fri, 2 Aug 2019 22:51:58 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <3000e948-14e6-80d2-e8e6-766d309c361c@nostrum.com>
Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2019 22:51:57 +0200
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Jacob Hoffman-Andrews <jsha@letsencrypt.org>, ART Area <art@ietf.org>, Devon O'Brien <devon.obrien@gmail.com>
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 586471915.917899-82afa68027196b9b6faba4fa6af80bf2
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <BF76E6F2-9DDC-4BC8-A326-F6DD890C378D@tzi.org>
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> <3000e948-14e6-80d2-e8e6-766d309c361c@nostrum.com>
To: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/ZNAfzwIOLBSe5Cl41rEnNMQTH0M>
Subject: Re: [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 20:52:03 -0000


> On Aug 2, 2019, at 22:15, Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> wrote:
> 
> 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?

This does sound good to me.

I hope we don’t put the topic back on the shelves with that specific decision for TRANS; we still need to have a feeling of the general shape of that exception as it will apply for other web-based protocols we define.

Grüße, Carsten

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email