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

Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Thu, 20 April 2023 14:03 UTC

Return-Path: <housley@vigilsec.com>
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 261D5C15152D; Thu, 20 Apr 2023 07:03:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 2x3W8A8vvgml; Thu, 20 Apr 2023 07:03:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail3.g24.pair.com (mail3.g24.pair.com [66.39.134.11]) (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 128B1C14CE53; Thu, 20 Apr 2023 07:03:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail3.g24.pair.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail3.g24.pair.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3ECA617F917; Thu, 20 Apr 2023 10:03:09 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.161] (unknown [96.241.2.243]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail3.g24.pair.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 15B1817E57D; Thu, 20 Apr 2023 10:03:09 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.21\))
From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
In-Reply-To: <B624C581-49CB-473B-9133-89109C82741D@tzi.org>
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2023 10:03:08 -0400
Cc: Stefan Santesson <sts@aaa-sec.com>, 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>, "Roman D. Danyliw" <rdd@cert.org>, auth48archive@rfc-editor.org, RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <D772A5DF-3C30-4596-A748-53CF04702BCE@vigilsec.com>
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>
To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.21)
X-Scanned-By: mailmunge 3.11 on 66.39.134.11
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/auth48archive/VjtJp1MzGNetQJSKJiCa_J6ZMaI>
Subject: Re: [auth48] 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: Thu, 20 Apr 2023 14:03:11 -0000

Carsten:

>> On 2023-04-20, at 15:09, Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> So this sounds like you should fix Table 1 and Appendix C to no longer use such a media type name (search for +xml+).
>> 
>> NO!  If we take that approach, then we cannot distinguish compressed an uncompressed SVG images.
> 
> You have image/svg+xml-compressed for that, which you use everywhere else, e.g. in the examples.
> (That is also an unregistered SSS “xml-compressed”, but that is the damage we take for taking in some reality, and the registration requirement for that is a SHOULD — phew.)

Only, we cannot get that registered, as I pointed out in the media-type mail list thread.

So, we are back to agreeing to disagree.

Let's stop going in circles.

Russ