IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Fri, 02 August 2019 20:53 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 14CDE120807 for <art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Aug 2019 13:53:11 -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=B1IB9TnC; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=C6chVSyu
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 ts8B8t0paVdT for <art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Aug 2019 13:53:08 -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 3B7B31201EC for <art@ietf.org>; Fri, 2 Aug 2019 13:53:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.internal [10.202.2.43]) by mailnew.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BBBD2821; Fri, 2 Aug 2019 16:53:07 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 02 Aug 2019 16:53:07 -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=u mxhR6pt5MQjzSBPyoGyMygDd24Uck3rMOFHfOJdAHo=; b=B1IB9TnCUOKDLCTEh UDD62uy5aChXnVuUBMj5hw5LnjqR4v9222LIp6YtqAkPz5cacRChLXpMg13th2IW 5hBUuwxYl2fV30fao4/y2ntE2NgtQF2XV5ARoEVABgcDXhY6NctHVXk2njcvPoFv iUp1dDJ5KEIxrofptUkOajyyjb6nKQ8EDwWvdHaYDgp9PgFRuYotuKg/2SUmnxcr vaRWBwDRFz+PrvYGIAU51k22lmqynOTCWirD+SdQmykfNUk9WuBXV5+E1Q34oGGJ UDyJz5TUZaDSR5oxGRzYKa5eKae2kqirJ6ZqI+uoYgh7270BNAWtL6Zf/0ApGR18 uWgAA==
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=umxhR6pt5MQjzSBPyoGyMygDd24Uck3rMOFHfOJdA Ho=; b=C6chVSyuiaNcpQy0D0hySQNgPIrqyE1wHJKYdewbVZKsXy1X7m7n8gSnQ FpVA/2LM/iHUl3ufOvZRmrJc/hJYBFQ66TMDw+JZeY0+2XtgjgglgCYAiKisZMlX s2k4H9JvcIqSd0WjPOFauBsFlXI8g3JD9usil7x9VQgpjUvp4QpyaH8oZeCD0FMX Z9tibM69jQfkbCw7SQV4wypiofq8B4kNSUwhJf8h33GCkaWsxLkS3XvwNqhsmMxi 3vVFa15rDuDUhmmtW2E876aHlFlCW9X324yx/snWAFGRoTr0IY0w04ZmADOKGYiw g+gnJF8Zin6745M0DICSJ98vZceIA==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:sqJEXRE6NQKI666ySCYzgRKboL08a2SLkF3dKgNNaKmpdi053YWVpQ>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduvddrleelgdduvdeiucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurheptggguffhjgffgffkfhfvofesthhqmhdthhdtjeenucfhrhhomhepofgrrhhk ucfpohhtthhinhhghhgrmhcuoehmnhhothesmhhnohhtrdhnvghtqeenucffohhmrghinh epmhhnohhtrdhnvghtnecukfhppeekrddukedrvddujedrvddtvdenucfrrghrrghmpehm rghilhhfrhhomhepmhhnohhtsehmnhhothdrnhgvthenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpe dt
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:sqJEXaO5fhR2xROEJlWw-71WCy7NMWxYx8PwpZFdtfFPP4e9Ahnv3g> <xmx:sqJEXQ2X1mOIu_60rUvwpTrOQbhT1Q4ZXy0NQsrtrJsxDIfB_t5mYQ> <xmx:sqJEXQFpJaH-mIi-gVAheMf5nkzrZO4Iek0_4nSDKOyUrjXVaBz6eg> <xmx:s6JEXej26pGkRA8VZ793tcwe5hmmuwex1LcgmH9_2kw_-XRi5OHfWA>
Received: from [10.100.20.67] (unknown [8.18.217.202]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 2E39E80061; Fri, 2 Aug 2019 16:53:06 -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: <BF76E6F2-9DDC-4BC8-A326-F6DD890C378D@tzi.org>
Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2019 13:53:05 -0700
Cc: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>, Jacob Hoffman-Andrews <jsha@letsencrypt.org>, ART Area <art@ietf.org>, Devon O'Brien <devon.obrien@gmail.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <912F860C-17AE-41D6-BAD1-B8C50D5CE337@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> <D154BA24-5027-4FAF-8779-CBA5533D24A1@mnot.net> <3000e948-14e6-80d2-e8e6-766d309c361c@nostrum.com> <BF76E6F2-9DDC-4BC8-A326-F6DD890C378D@tzi.org>
To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/wJUMQ3Aa7wvhS6PknMN7qqpEDDo>
Subject: Re: [art] Call for Consensus: Re: 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 20:53:14 -0000

Agreed; I'm planning an -00 of a bis for discussion.

Cheers,


> On 2 Aug 2019, at 1:51 pm, Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On Aug 2, 2019, at 22:15, Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> 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?
> 
> This does sound good to me.
> 
> I hope we don’t put the topic back on the shelves with that specific decision for TRANS; we still need to have a feeling of the general shape of that exception as it will apply for other web-based protocols we define.
> 
> Grüße, Carsten

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email