IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [auth48] [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9399 <draft-ietf-lamps-rfc3709bis-10> for your review

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Fri, 21 April 2023 21:17 UTC

Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.org>
X-Original-To: auth48archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: auth48archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E099AC151547; Fri, 21 Apr 2023 14:17:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.888
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.888 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, T_SPF_TEMPERROR=0.01] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id p-70zE221FA4; Fri, 21 Apr 2023 14:17:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de (smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:32::21]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 072F2C15152C; Fri, 21 Apr 2023 14:17:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (p548dc9a4.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.141.201.164]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4Q36mj3ySnzDCbf; Fri, 21 Apr 2023 23:17:25 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3731.500.231\))
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <B866202C-3073-41AE-BD03-57AD0323503A@amsl.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2023 23:17:14 +0200
Cc: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>, Stefan Santesson <sts@aaa-sec.com>, "Roman D. Danyliw" <rdd@cert.org>, Trevor Freeman <frtrevor@amazon.com>, Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com>, lamps-ads@ietf.org, LAMPS Chairs <lamps-chairs@ietf.org>, Tim Hollebeek <tim.hollebeek@digicert.com>, auth48archive@rfc-editor.org, RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <0FD1353E-9DFE-434C-A975-C0509DB9777D@tzi.org>
References: <20230407181524.E739B7FDC0@rfcpa.amsl.com> <F90558EB-F03B-4461-9EE5-1C220530D488@tzi.org> <dee8a7d7-c023-f07a-4776-ac3c395ee553@aaa-sec.com> <3F480C86-C862-4A47-8CE6-C3A6A069B574@tzi.org> <9CFDA284-E444-492A-8D21-8406B12DA6F3@vigilsec.com> <9ABA86A8-7F07-42F8-BF84-A0BF0124B1A0@tzi.org> <D087B817-E5E5-4D4D-814E-6096526523E2@vigilsec.com> <ACE9B926-FB1B-4ED2-973F-13B61E25AC59@tzi.org> <4C588A9B-A63E-447E-BA32-4FBED6B00A52@vigilsec.com> <EEF19E07-F362-412D-A9BC-BA7B94411B30@tzi.org> <D16DC362-9EBB-43CA-935E-A12FEF84F64C@vigilsec.com> <16BA8E25-8ACF-4DF5-8D24-773E2796D989@tzi.org> <0A24F906-7F87-43A9-8B5C-4049839FD969@vigilsec.com> <B624C581-49CB-473B-9133-89109C82741D@tzi.org> <D772A5DF-3C30-4596-A748-53CF04702BCE@vigilsec.com> <D21F6756-C2AD-4BD3-A483-A9E9A10E6158@tzi.org> <B866202C-3073-41AE-BD03-57AD0323503A@amsl.com>
To: Alanna Paloma <apaloma@amsl.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3731.500.231)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/auth48archive/LzeMAjjV55VByFKvzfEHgA8cqgo>
Subject: Re: [auth48] [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9399 <draft-ietf-lamps-rfc3709bis-10> for your review
X-BeenThere: auth48archive@rfc-editor.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Archiving AUTH48 exchanges between the RFC Production Center, the authors, and other related parties" <auth48archive.rfc-editor.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/options/auth48archive>, <mailto:auth48archive-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/>
List-Post: <mailto:auth48archive@rfc-editor.org>
List-Help: <mailto:auth48archive-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/auth48archive>, <mailto:auth48archive-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2023 21:17:36 -0000

On 21. Apr 2023, at 21:48, Alanna Paloma <apaloma@amsl.com> wrote:
> 
> All - We do not believe that our query regarding ABNF in Section 4.3 has been addressed (see below). Please review and let us know how to proceed with this.

Since you asked “all”: RFC 2397 uses a form of BNF that is taken from RFC 822, but with some gratuitous changes.
This form was already used in RFC 2045 and its predecessors RFC 1521 and RFC 1341.  I do not know the origin of these changes (I find them first in RFC 989 and 1049); they are not mentioned in Section 2 of RFC 2045/1521/1341 — the authors may not have been fully aware that they were changing the notation.  Interestingly, the changes are not used in RFC 2396, which uses the original RFC 822 notation in its recently published RFC 2234 “ABNF” form.  In summary, the snippet copied from RFC 2397 is “almost” ABNF.

I do not see a need (*) to copy the (unfixed for errata) form of the grammar from RFC 2397 — this is probably here because it was in RFC 6170.  (Any reference to this part of RFC 2397 should probably include a reference to the verified errata.)

Grüße, Carsten

(*) another example of the “restatement antipattern” and why it should be avoided.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email