Re: [art] BCP190

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

Hiya,

On 23/07/2019 16:03, Adam Roach wrote:
> While I do have opinions here, I'm presently trying to get input from
> the community rather than influence the conversation. I may weigh in on
> the topic later; but for now, I don't want to push one way or the other.

On the general topic, I don't think it's realistic nor wise
to try always strictly enforce BCPs. BCP107 is a fine case
in point - attempts by the SEC ADs over the years (including
this former instance of the animal;-) haven't IMO made the
Internet better in most cases - some yes, but mostly not, and
while the general guidance is correct, being too strict with
it is not, in the end, a good plan.

Specific to trans, there are not millions of CT logs in the
world, and nor should there be and nor will there be. We're
talking a handful. So I do not think the problems that BCP190
attempts to mitigate apply here really.

So, in this case, I'd say give 'em a pass and let the current
deployed scheme continue to be used. IIRC URL handling is
pretty much as was done in the deployed and very widely used
RFC6962, which has made the Internet better in a fairly
significant manner IMO.

Adding a note that they're being a bit naughty would be fine.

Cheers,
S.


Cheers,
S.