[art] Benjamin Kaduk's Yes on draft-nottingham-rfc7320bis-03: (with COMMENT)
Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Thu, 23 January 2020 03:14 UTC
Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: art@ietf.org
Delivered-To: art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D8C31200A1; Wed, 22 Jan 2020 19:14:50 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-nottingham-rfc7320bis@ietf.org, art@ietf.org, mt@mozilla.com, mt@lowentropy.net
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.116.1
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
Message-ID: <157974929057.12202.17704666202770133539.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2020 19:14:50 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/v6zLS2230WkDR4hNNERsa7CanZs>
Subject: [art] Benjamin Kaduk's Yes on draft-nottingham-rfc7320bis-03: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Thu, 23 Jan 2020 03:14:51 -0000
Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for draft-nottingham-rfc7320bis-03: Yes When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-nottingham-rfc7320bis/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for the well-written document! A few minor comments: Section 2.1 Applications and Extensions can require use of specific URI scheme(s); for example, it is perfectly acceptable to require that an Application support 'http' and 'https' URIs. However, Applications ought not preclude the use of other URI schemes in the future, unless they are clearly only usable with the nominated schemes. I'm having a little trouble squaring "can require specific schemes" with "ought not preclude the use of other schemes". How accurate would it be to try to summarize this guidance as "specify what properties you need the scheme to have, not the scheme itself"? Section 2.4 side note: the discussion we give here about the flaws in assumptions about query parameters named "sig" is more complete than the earlier such discussion in Section 1; the earlier treatment is slightly confusing without the additional context present here. It's not really clear that a forward reference would be appropriate, though, hence this is just a side note. Section 3 Specifying more elaborate structures in an attempt to avoid collisions is not an acceptable solution, and does not address the issues in Section 1. For example, prefixing query parameters with "myapp_" does not help, because the prefix itself is subject to the risk of collision (since it is not "reserved"). nit: I'm not sure what purpose the scare-quotes on "reserved" serve. nit^2: the previous paragraph uses single-quotes around 'reserved'.
- [art] Benjamin Kaduk's Yes on draft-nottingham-rf… Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker
- Re: [art] Benjamin Kaduk's Yes on draft-nottingha… Mark Nottingham