IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [art] On BCP 190

Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Wed, 24 July 2019 03:38 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 4465512008A for <art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 20:38:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.98
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.98 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) 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 8ygz22V9eNOi for <art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 20:38:37 -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 85ED7120046 for <art@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 20:38:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Orochi.local ([196.52.21.207]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id x6O3cXug007700 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 23 Jul 2019 22:38:35 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nostrum.com; s=default; t=1563939517; bh=oCtUcisSjHDYXP6TfSLxkdQt0oyjGpMMP0NmL9mIcuk=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=hN9KkKkqivDdebFlEwkNgVTWtcWgEFAbFK18TDIkSAtGGzrsioJ+wUmUTdRPLVkTP mSutZV5NCVWaTxGVt+ffB9/ccXHXbL0bKi7ri1PR+KEtlWivXE8ijadBtNuncSJkM0 kRnJZxwY0g2Kpq9hrdgzf8eMKDj/tfVA1qpCdUZI=
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host [196.52.21.207] claimed to be Orochi.local
To: Leif Johansson <leifj@mnt.se>
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, art@ietf.org
References: <58BF6171-03BB-4F83-940F-3A101EFDD67F@mnot.net> <2ba63f8c-0f61-bd59-fbca-9d782a0d9818@mnt.se> <F81E44F7-7B51-4C68-9470-E94EFD2D4102@mnot.net> <e9780f61-681f-a5d9-7b06-549a2e652f5f@mnt.se> <42C8475A-6DFE-4DC6-B608-8159B90F9CDB@mnot.net> <55E6A246-4D77-44DA-AF2B-AA9C42FACC2F@mnt.se> <750cb62e-1256-4e3f-a072-438f6d468f2d@nostrum.com> <9847EF63-6BDE-4746-81C7-EA446FC5938E@mnt.se>
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Message-ID: <14ed2e66-938e-9ffd-7ff4-ef632c95db14@nostrum.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2019 23:38:33 -0400
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: <9847EF63-6BDE-4746-81C7-EA446FC5938E@mnt.se>
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/l1p9sDx3wwkTS_kte5mOMppE3Dk>
Subject: Re: [art] 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: Wed, 24 Jul 2019 03:38:39 -0000

On 7/23/19 18:25, Leif Johansson wrote:
>
> Skickat från min iPhone
>
>> 23 juli 2019 kl. 17:49 skrev Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>:
>>
>> Leif --
>>
>> It seems to me, watching this conversation, that you and Mark are talking past each other. While I understand the points he is making, I'm having a hard time following your line of logic given that BCP 190 does, in fact, codify practices that have largely been applied to URI usage in the past (albeit only in an ad-hoc fashion prior to its publication). It's done a pretty reasonable job of keeping protocols from co-opting parts of the URI space so far, and will ostensibly continue to do so into the future.
>>
> I read Mark saying that there are 1000s of APIs that get it wrong. That made me ask if (and if so you you know) BCP190 is actually working.


Ah. I'm pretty sure -- and Mark can confirm -- that what he meant to 
convey by that statement is that he's concerned about the impacts of 
1000s of APIs eroding the usable URI namespace in the future if we were 
to abandon or substantially weaken the constraints outlined in BCP 190.

/a

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email