IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [art] On BCP 190

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Fri, 02 August 2019 18:55 UTC

Return-Path: <mnot@mnot.net>
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 12C261207CA for <art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Aug 2019 11:55:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.701
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.701 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mnot.net header.b=AouKm3Cb; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=juVBsT+3
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 2yMSnFanMjV5 for <art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Aug 2019 11:55:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from new2-smtp.messagingengine.com (new2-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.224]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ACA71120278 for <art@ietf.org>; Fri, 2 Aug 2019 11:55:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.internal [10.202.2.43]) by mailnew.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAA5D1B95; Fri, 2 Aug 2019 14:55:17 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 02 Aug 2019 14:55:17 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mnot.net; h= content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; s=fm3; bh=C WqRSDRvZUbgZOTyhhYCzn0wtfnIi5n2zyHIHf2lolo=; b=AouKm3Cbl1iSodLBb ru+oazosI/EQFIirTvPhWOZW/GGC2XOTGpJcCISzwXBTgUpUWrDDlwLpMEo+EE25 zs/PBy3UZeFIWwjw9Pgg9OMWs/HVJDPLeZdtfjDVh8K1hH3aCOQ+UdUHWDMS1Mb+ J+gI8Sss/1+qVsZquO7P1lS0DDDMna6XurD5VzDxQ2lbvQOlFKV1ij1fxaJo7S/J OzEzhAEHvrcSGCZIXoHqgyt5HDlGhj+8hCm6fgl6o0Y6+qms0IkIdVU8Nrewo69Y zAoZjsGjLnNhPMAn6R63aiZQmtLAKa4DGB81F2pohoYS4saVC80jQwFxk1jBGcXg BfvzQ==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; bh=CWqRSDRvZUbgZOTyhhYCzn0wtfnIi5n2zyHIHf2lo lo=; b=juVBsT+3a5VlziDo2hLsQscko1IlF/8J0aZ5WSzBi1VWPA3OXQSObDoF8 kqg+FvPhOBckNH5840L+2aGYQ4//jHbCVZR1/xv8wYf18JGnBqeQDi2IuKAMzb9Z Ion1exbMSBNG3pAXYIc9gqFwf9duLE6UebagPuKhhjNc+fU3ujR9YfncrDjrLnCs L/gJ1zRUFanSyjDrC9iCGb8fvThjKvEzRqdLzJ9E/BvNpxtmRnwgi1bZkJGWoCcZ nLqPiXvg7YraNJCi0mEHv7mChnB/tqADPeezd6MCcJTxQ9cACGDp1Fm/7DZiYpTv jZ/xy/H6UaAABv1gnzlR3z0KMZASQ==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:FIdEXYWqiFKmwn1_Gt1PDDBwk5Dd0sQ960PDhLyRKCATIcF0V_Klzg>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduvddrleelgddutdefucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne goufhushhpvggtthffohhmrghinhculdegledmnecujfgurheptggguffhjgffgffkfhfv ofesthhqmhdthhdtjeenucfhrhhomhepofgrrhhkucfpohhtthhinhhghhgrmhcuoehmnh hothesmhhnohhtrdhnvghtqeenucffohhmrghinhepsghlohhgshhpohhtrdgtohhmpdhm nhhothdrnhgvthenucfkphepkedrudekrddvudejrddvtddvnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrih hlfhhrohhmpehmnhhothesmhhnohhtrdhnvghtnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptd
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:FIdEXWUkEMmw6cFsCSyA0Kx6CfsnP5t4pl9IQ0tqG7DPkOuHC1c8oA> <xmx:FIdEXY69jzd4PuuUE8xQawVhwJbxi-xfstLBg5ow-r8ILlJ60Kpczw> <xmx:FIdEXbJeC8uQ7TVQy6IXT7R508RDtoZ1WhB_gKpehffLJYsJDhzzoA> <xmx:FYdEXSmx32g7WEEGGDTVrVYjKJYk06lo_guz-8dEIQ9y6uKl2wWYnw>
Received: from [10.100.20.67] (unknown [8.18.217.202]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id BFF9680060; Fri, 2 Aug 2019 14:55:15 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAN3x4Q=XR+=ugv6HEmOgsA6v64GkQ+4u-Hk+OBQ0Lp9jn-Cy=A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2019 11:55:14 -0700
Cc: ART Area <art@ietf.org>, Devon O'Brien <devon.obrien@gmail.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <D154BA24-5027-4FAF-8779-CBA5533D24A1@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>
To: Jacob Hoffman-Andrews <jsha@letsencrypt.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/t2xlJ7pbYLrIyaJUugFfidHgtqM>
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: Fri, 02 Aug 2019 18:55:22 -0000

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?

Cheers,


> On 31 Jul 2019, at 2:10 pm, Jacob Hoffman-Andrews <jsha@letsencrypt.org> wrote:
> 
> On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 11:26 PM Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org> wrote:
> The use of / in the path of URLs was supposed to
> 
> be restricted to hierarchical data, and yet CT doesn’t
> do that.
> 
> http://masinter.blogspot.com/2019/05/on-nature-of-hierarchical-urls.html
> 
> 
> CT and all prefix-using APIs do that, with a single level hierarchy. The domain owner specifies a prefix, ending with a "/". All of the URLs that are part of the API follow that prefix - they are subordinate in the hierarchy.
> 
> Coming back to the main point: What remains in order to find consensus on this issue?
> 
> Thanks,
> Jacob

--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email