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

Rob Stradling <rob@sectigo.com> Thu, 08 August 2019 22:28 UTC

Return-Path: <rob@sectigo.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 706A512003F for <art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Aug 2019 15:28:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=comodoca.onmicrosoft.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 7SaFhAMkiemO for <art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Aug 2019 15:28:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from NAM02-BL2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-eopbgr750072.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.107.75.72]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8F3C112003E for <art@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Aug 2019 15:28:49 -0700 (PDT)
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=AuE4Cx1948KGaOCAexfWB6eSZZg68VRn8dzsOk1qgKsBZTii6Hy+Q2MD6uJ0HJKRe6UgcaAjmofEOA7W8kG5vOaKVZ5Unfm36+uRSI+H1MNaB4wn71ucJwaF62lU8TAAyR7HSEUH3xibbnYbPk3jeDfSsPlR57ZEWkgpvKgo7f7D+jYHxS89O2AA9DpteVEImrFEc6v3ELwoWwAoXBxzGytDWI81yB7FDlcuBo+vbZ00E1Ka+pJzZzUaQ3mhOgw7gGTlQGn99LZi8eikgH1PfvsnsrYYCV7xjEEAH47E9l7d4Ez+U3pKqecsvYMeBH5Ix2gJ3n6iRGnFdWc00Y2QZA==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=8seaHjouMUIIvgVybUeM+w9yz3Xx8RvZg4geXJaNHs4=; b=ZXd9lfoD+e1VvJbQlXX5+xmBt0iiOSY9GyBWAaH7ITj2QwyBqDWFNEmUhSIE9HKuF+27bJ+qyWNBhqN7NdqNC1zrXtvos7iR2r85Nxbkzb5gEAOLZKo6OLXTtau/mEebmM/RwnIeF9fdvZLra9N8aJLQuUsFR7v0JbRb9xR5EtV3tb1oCl9h5bpB3t3oQdnEfFYEyVlDFCIbsMGXW09AjhdD9Y9t8DxS6GAk+n6V85pZOAFtDkrPMyxQR8FSfQIijQ4p9jVXRdz2JUwWY+uf7edeTXoAhesa2RXb76Ks0Sw1qaRsboDXjTRmzwgEeIA7ISg+45+C+nRWWZX6TyrsCw==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1;spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=sectigo.com;dmarc=pass action=none header.from=sectigo.com;dkim=pass header.d=sectigo.com;arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comodoca.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-comodoca-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=8seaHjouMUIIvgVybUeM+w9yz3Xx8RvZg4geXJaNHs4=; b=Y24QAwFcol6Ig1/EZyA90p/jfDBl52i0mFoq5meSXEwWHxkH0P5CaVai3jgodBauEeE8Q3x2slQnSQtD9DOlQGSi8vcpofITttkcDrLnOgfMIgOWi9Sawao6FWvd1f1SeN+Nro3wdeiCQrP2VP3gTT2LoAyQFZkIjEmAXVeokY0=
Received: from DM5PR17MB1211.namprd17.prod.outlook.com (10.173.132.148) by DM5PR17MB0969.namprd17.prod.outlook.com (10.168.115.145) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2136.17; Thu, 8 Aug 2019 22:28:46 +0000
Received: from DM5PR17MB1211.namprd17.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::9079:2b0e:ecba:6663]) by DM5PR17MB1211.namprd17.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::9079:2b0e:ecba:6663%9]) with mapi id 15.20.2136.022; Thu, 8 Aug 2019 22:28:46 +0000
From: Rob Stradling <rob@sectigo.com>
To: "art@ietf.org" <art@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [art] Call for Consensus: Re: On BCP 190
Thread-Index: AQHVTjik4dsE07TQqk2OfPNvmbHpsA==
Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2019 22:28:46 +0000
Message-ID: <3b160971-f616-ec5d-e8fd-62c7a034770d@sectigo.com>
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>
In-Reply-To: <3000e948-14e6-80d2-e8e6-766d309c361c@nostrum.com>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-clientproxiedby: LO2P123CA0018.GBRP123.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM (2603:10a6:600:a6::30) To DM5PR17MB1211.namprd17.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:3:8b::20)
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=rob@sectigo.com;
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-originating-ip: [2a0e:ac00:25d:300:f68e:38ff:fe7a:a226]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: ba242ac9-118d-4226-5c6a-08d71c4fc69b
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390118)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(4534185)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(5600148)(711020)(4605104)(1401327)(2017052603328)(7193020); SRVR:DM5PR17MB0969;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: DM5PR17MB0969:
x-ms-exchange-purlcount: 2
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <DM5PR17MB09690C02575B8714F2542C4FAAD70@DM5PR17MB0969.namprd17.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:10000;
x-forefront-prvs: 012349AD1C
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(346002)(396003)(136003)(39860400002)(366004)(376002)(199004)(189003)(66446008)(5660300002)(446003)(2351001)(46003)(66556008)(476003)(966005)(14454004)(66946007)(186003)(7736002)(11346002)(6512007)(486006)(478600001)(81156014)(8936002)(31686004)(2501003)(305945005)(2616005)(53936002)(8676002)(6246003)(6486002)(1730700003)(25786009)(81166006)(99286004)(36756003)(52116002)(5640700003)(6506007)(53546011)(386003)(31696002)(66476007)(71200400001)(76176011)(6436002)(229853002)(71190400001)(86362001)(102836004)(6116002)(6916009)(2906002)(64756008)(6306002)(14444005)(316002)(256004); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:DM5PR17MB0969; H:DM5PR17MB1211.namprd17.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: sectigo.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: pS6f1LI9QwxvLXJkGwlZA87qMDsdzprk0fUJdDODk2GsYKodsGGUBF6nWvFP9qh5QI4qEfMefo6d+SYOeMRkhGczTqFjSbYNlhijs1QAm3jmSQQ+Dlz0h2B4VzubHeksoCT3NB7PO76ZKjezapLBD3LagATHDw+3/epF+MAB79uwtVsFlAGitIIKVlm+5Hy6ARDKXGHLNBZqas/r6jrrGskU9jS330SXtboDsWPsytpKophKdfTCftC26J7sHAcQOZZG99D8Ik34TpyIRvDHLQaacBblF4L7svwRWhEwLD9G0o/Nbr3yA51udJu8l6AQO/RrCP9+yXeS07Q5eb+7+NxsdsWvuaCOkCqGNTMuRlZer4jaDcYmT3sXelbrkUm0jPg4zOMXFGXotolADSU2HSZkxvuPrUl8jYWLi33R6QY=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <BA2FCC2C10E63843A0B3CE8A15C2F2B4@namprd17.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: sectigo.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: ba242ac9-118d-4226-5c6a-08d71c4fc69b
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 08 Aug 2019 22:28:46.4065 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 0e9c4894-6caa-465d-9660-4b6968b49fb7
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: robs@comodoca.net
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DM5PR17MB0969
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/wbJ-RkGoKtu6tSoCHDbSGvXhBnM>
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: Thu, 08 Aug 2019 22:28:53 -0000

This sounds good to me.

On 02/08/2019 21:15, 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/

-- 
Rob Stradling
Senior Research & Development Scientist
Sectigo Limited