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

I've seen precious little response to this (two messages in two weeks), 
and conclude that people either do not care; or, the people who do care 
can't reasonably be reached to weigh in on the topic. That said, I think 
that these responses combined with the input received during IETF 105 
are a weak signal that that there is support for adjusting BCP 190 at 
least to the extent necessary to allow the "provisioned directory 
prefix" approach used by CT.

So I'm going to clear my DISCUSS under the assumption that Mark will be 
putting forth a proposed amendment to BCP 190 in the near future. I'm 
happy to AD sponsor publication of such a change, assuming we can get a 
more vigorous level of participation than we did on this thread.

/a

On 8/2/19 3:15 PM, Adam Roach wrote:
> For the purposes of clearing my discuss, I intend to read the 
> responses to Mark's message below as a reflection of consensus from 
> the community. If you have thoughts on the topic, please weigh in on 
> the ART-area mailing list no later than Friday, August 16th.
>
> People who have participated in the discussion in TRANS are very much 
> welcome to re-express their opinions in this thread. I'm also hoping 
> that we get some input from other participants -- even if it's 
> something as simple as "this sounds good to me" -- to make sure all 
> relevant perspectives are taken into account.
>
> Thanks!
>
> /a
>
> On 8/2/19 1:55 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> 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/
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> art mailing list
>> art@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/art
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> art mailing list
> art@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/art