IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [art] Against BCP 190

Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Fri, 12 July 2019 20:58 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 5EA31120331 for <art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Jul 2019 13:58:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.68
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.68 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" 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 k6ViE5Q2dcj7 for <art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Jul 2019 13:58:42 -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 2DBC51201DC for <art@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Jul 2019 13:58:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from MacBook-Pro.roach.at (99-152-146-228.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.146.228]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id x6CKwOw7061114 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 12 Jul 2019 15:58:25 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nostrum.com; s=default; t=1562965106; bh=AJqo0zEOEtEiszy+b9AII+tU6jjsVXKJIxTps5NkV7w=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=TE+aR9sDAmR9L6HmWRmuDB1FmGyKA/bzixzlH4LShDlUuhvbTfWZYQDlz+iIzvgnc 6m1j11/KYtlON8CLSXn/jRtLjbFGk24S6yavIY1NnyPPlVwmwvLYiyzfD1Qi5cnKHU 8KXlyDUBBR3Za/m1mXa/bROg48XfHDMQvWMCOHn8=
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host 99-152-146-228.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.146.228] claimed to be MacBook-Pro.roach.at
To: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, art@ietf.org
References: <791b33b8-4696-f69c-aca3-8838b2caafd8@sectigo.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20190712124133.0bf7b938@elandnews.com>
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Message-ID: <5def00d8-7bc7-5122-d0f4-0150643fd982@nostrum.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2019 15:58:18 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.7.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20190712124133.0bf7b938@elandnews.com>
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/vcUQD4V6PlTMbzfW_89JhvhJEF0>
Subject: Re: [art] Against 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, 12 Jul 2019 20:58:43 -0000

On 7/12/19 2:46 PM, S Moonesamy wrote:
> Hi Mark,
> At 09:45 AM 12-07-2019, Rob Stradling wrote:
>> During IESG review of RFC6962-bis (Certificate Transparency Version
>> 2.0), BCP 190 is creating significant problems in standardizing
>> HTTP-based APIs.  Specifically, this paragraph of section 2.3
>
> There was a comment from Stephen about Section 2.3 of what became RFC 
> 7320.  Do you remember whether it was addressed and how, if that is 
> the case? 


It was -- the document added an example of a concern that this rule is 
intended to protect:

     (for example, an
     implementation that prefers to use query processing instead, because
     of implementation constraints).

/a

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email