IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Thu, 20 April 2023 12:51 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 42C83C15152B; Thu, 20 Apr 2023 05:51:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.188
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.188 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, 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 4ffF2nitEvbF; Thu, 20 Apr 2023 05:51:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de (smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.50.21]) (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 7C416C14CF1B; Thu, 20 Apr 2023 05:51:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.217.124] (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 4Q2HbP42g0zDCbH; Thu, 20 Apr 2023 14:51:29 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.7\))
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <4C588A9B-A63E-447E-BA32-4FBED6B00A52@vigilsec.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2023 14:51:29 +0200
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>
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 703687889.045729-2140ec1b54f9fadc0065c031a15e3dfa
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <EEF19E07-F362-412D-A9BC-BA7B94411B30@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>
To: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.7)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/auth48archive/zdKPwnvLEn3Sw22p0rwyIG3qEnA>
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 12:51:39 -0000

On 2023-04-20, at 14:44, Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> wrote:
> 
> While two media types for the same thing is not the most desirable outcome, AUTH48 is not the time to _start_ a fight to get a media type registered.

I still don’t know what you see in the document that I don’t.
The current text is just confused about the two unregistered media type names, it does not specify “two media types for the same thing”.  It doesn’t even say there are two, it just randomly uses two names for what is obviously discussed as being the same media type.

So even if you do want to use an unregistered media type, please decide which of the two media type names you want to use.

(In other news, AUTH48 tends to be the place where we fix things.)

Grüße, Carsten

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email