Re: [core] Tossing around URIs to use outside an application

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Mon, 17 May 2021 15:10 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: core@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: core@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30C6F3A3B3B for <core@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 May 2021 08:10:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 Mp0pVcG_UnTh for <core@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 May 2021 08:10:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 07A9F3A3B39 for <core@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 May 2021 08:10:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77F2C39058; Mon, 17 May 2021 11:19:23 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id gGTeVf6jDZ9z; Mon, 17 May 2021 11:19:19 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5491B39054; Mon, 17 May 2021 11:19:19 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38B3E5FB; Mon, 17 May 2021 11:09:59 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Thomas Fossati <Thomas.Fossati@arm.com>, =?us-ascii?Q?=3D=3Futf-8=3FB?= =?us-ascii?Q?=3FQ2hyaXN0aWFuIEFtc8O8c3M=3D=3F=3D?= <christian@amsuess.com>, "core\@ietf.org" <core@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <FFC288E5-88B3-4AEE-A28E-BB6811EC678C@arm.com>
References: <YKJltpQ9l6k4tseH@hephaistos.amsuess.com> <FFC288E5-88B3-4AEE-A28E-BB6811EC678C@arm.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Mon, 17 May 2021 11:09:59 -0400
Message-ID: <2433.1621264199@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/core/1iyOgMqVplXxtlmqYjIGToccR1E>
Subject: Re: [core] Tossing around URIs to use outside an application
X-BeenThere: core@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Constrained RESTful Environments \(CoRE\) Working Group list" <core.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/core>, <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/core/>
List-Post: <mailto:core@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/core>, <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 May 2021 15:10:10 -0000

Thomas Fossati <Thomas.Fossati@arm.com> wrote:
    > On 17/05/2021, 13:47, "Christian Amsüss" <christian@amsuess.com> wrote:
    >> * By comparison: on the WWW being tossed a URI is commonplace; they
    >> are sent over all channels (text print, QR print, radio announcements
    >> etc), and usable by virtue of DNS+PKI.
    >>
    >> They are usable without metadata. If a browser was given a URI of a
    >> lock, it may ask the user to go through some login service but then
    >> serve from that URI alone.

    > This was probably true before QUIC and ECH.  Now an HTTPS URI needs
    > more context to be successfully dereferenced.

Uhm, that's not my understanding.
If both ends support QUIC, then the HTTPS is replaced with QUIC, otherwise it
continues with HTTPS.

    >> What I'm leaning towards taking from this is that we should be able to
    >> support tossable URIs, but what they would look like in practice in a
    >> CoREnvironment may need looking into.

    > For deployments with DNS, an SVCB [1] profiled for the needs of CoAP
    > and its secure substrates may be an efficient way to handle these
    > "tossable" URIs.

Yes, so SVCB seems to be just more data like AAAA.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide