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

John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Tue, 20 August 2019 10:56 UTC

Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.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 95BCA1200DE for <art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Aug 2019 03:56:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 uFq2JUyA5wtd for <art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Aug 2019 03:56:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (bsa2.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5B38112001A for <art@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Aug 2019 03:56:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [198.252.137.10] (helo=PSB) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1i01o1-000KMi-MK; Tue, 20 Aug 2019 06:56:01 -0400
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2019 06:55:55 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
cc: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>, Jacob Hoffman-Andrews <jsha@letsencrypt.org>, ART Area <art@ietf.org>, Devon O'Brien <devon.obrien@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <E02E5D4BA18EF0155B0EAE95@PSB>
In-Reply-To: <A27BC0BC-B60A-44AD-B75B-859C71B0706A@mnot.net>
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> <ed64dc0e-5b71-63ec-cbac-85673c51109a@nostrum.com> <301DF34E4C5601BCA4D2BCBF@PSB> <A27BC0BC-B60A-44AD-B75B-859C71B0706A@mnot.net>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.10
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/atseo6y9degONioieZvFNx1l-T0>
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: Tue, 20 Aug 2019 10:56:10 -0000

Mark,

Happy to wait, but a few comments going forward:

* For Adam, there is some question in my mind about whether it
is desirable to clear a Discuss based on a plan about a document
that has not been written yet, that has no firm schedule, etc.

* It seems to me that your "for the users" draft suffers from
some of the same issues as 7320.  It might be worth having a
look at that concurrently and in the same light.

* If you/we are going to do a 7320bis, a careful examination of
whether it should really be handled as a BCP or whether it is an
A/S or actual substantive update to 3986 would be in order.  In
addition, several of the comments in 7320 seem far more relevant
to locator-type URIs rather than name-type ones.  The revision
should probably be scrutinized to be sure that it doesn't say
things that does not invite a tangle or other awkwardness for
URNs or, even in theory, other name-type URI.

I guess the good news is that a 7320bis is likely to get much
closer examination in the community than it now appears that
7320 received.

best,
    john


--On Tuesday, August 20, 2019 17:34 +1000 Mark Nottingham
<mnot@mnot.net> wrote:

> John,
> 
>> On 20 Aug 2019, at 4:06 pm, John C Klensin
>> <john-ietf@jck.com> wrote:
> 
> [ many words elided ]
> 
>> The thing I find objectionable about BCP 190 is that it
>> specifies a design model for URIs generally and then tries to
>> insist that new work conform to it.
> 
> [...]
> 
>> It arguably does not so much update 3986 as it reinterprets
>> some of its provisions.   While objectionable, that would be
>> ok in a BCP if "BCP" were taken seriously as a general
>> statement of preferred practices, not a "you can't do this in
>> the future, no matter what the circumstances, because we said
>> so" protocol constraint.
> 
> [...]
> 
>> So,
>> if RFC 7320 represents  best current thinking as of July 2014
>> and some document comes along that represents newer thinking,
>> potentially involving conditions that 7320 did not consider,
>> it is probably entirely reasonable to insist that the authors
>> of the new document explain those conditions and resulting
>> thinking.   It is closer to that Procrustean bed if those
>> authors have to apply for an exception to BCP 190 or
>> relitigate it as a condition for moving forward.
> 
> As has been said, I think that we failed to distinguish
> between practices that could be harmful to other uses -- and
> therefore should be prohibited -- and those that are just ones
> you want to think about before engaging in. I committed to
> performing an update to reflect this, so before we spill too
> many bits on this topic, perhaps it would be good to look at
> that and then discuss.
> 
> To that end, I've just published a -00 [1] that's just a copy
> of the BCP; I'll do some refinement along the lines above and
> then see where we're at.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> 1. draft-nottingham-rfc7320bis, although
> <https://mnot.github.io/I-D/rfc7320bis/> might be easier on
> the eyes.
> 
> --
> Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
>