IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dispatch] Tiny update to RFC 3405

Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com> Tue, 23 June 2020 14:12 UTC

Return-Path: <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4EB63A0E19 for <dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Jun 2020 07:12:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.078
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.078 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nostrum.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 5jtGvQqXt9uQ for <dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Jun 2020 07:12:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 513FD3A0E1F for <dispatch@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Jun 2020 07:12:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from unescapeable.local ([47.186.30.41]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id 05NECA5i004139 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO) for <dispatch@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Jun 2020 09:12:11 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from rjsparks@nostrum.com)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nostrum.com; s=default; t=1592921532; bh=SXM7BdzDIPpHZ5KQ+8u7NjEu/jtPT1/GIuq4MveFejQ=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=R5hX1ejEUYteRf+F7MyS5F/rC92n/freUpvLo+bUIcj1w35p1THLAzwLO5i7LgPzP 6tUCkrcUePIbIhBgXFUA9rIiB+SfCuOdiNpROki5zUh5OrW1yTe/rNrXykJB5WVccr +9VapaI09/BstRKP3gMgIm0t/5kxeP4Aq0sdJHsA=
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host [47.186.30.41] claimed to be unescapeable.local
To: dispatch@ietf.org
References: <CA+9kkMC2dFjvgEWKDDqThF3jJipcZeP4ZTofvhQ0oAx7NvB7tg@mail.gmail.com> <85664807-701C-4700-ABB7-D0434F14D6A0@nostrum.com>
From: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
Message-ID: <de369f07-12bd-b657-0aa2-cb0cffeee553@nostrum.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2020 09:12:10 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <85664807-701C-4700-ABB7-D0434F14D6A0@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------1AE4A72983988DD438EF1DB6"
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dispatch/879epRbNFpKvBkR-CvkWiEfGLJY>
Subject: Re: [dispatch] Tiny update to RFC 3405
X-BeenThere: dispatch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: DISPATCH Working Group Mail List <dispatch.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dispatch>, <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dispatch/>
List-Post: <mailto:dispatch@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch>, <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2020 14:12:15 -0000

I can live with either path, but I still think allowing Dispatch to 
adopt work was a step onto the slippery slope mistake.

On 6/22/20 5:51 PM, Ben Campbell wrote:
> Hi Everyone,
>
> The ART ADs have reminded the chairs that our charter allows us to 
> adopt “simple administrative” work such as IANA registration 
> documents. This draft seems to fit squarely in that category. Does 
> anyone see a reason we shouldn’t just adopt it, with the expectation 
> of going immediately to WGLC? (The last-call timeline is the same 
> either way, either 2 weeks WGLC and 2 weeks IETF LC for a working 
> group draft, or 4 weeks IETF LC for an AD sponsored draft.)
>
> Thanks!
>
> Ben (as co-chair)
>
>> On Jun 3, 2020, at 6:13 PM, Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com 
>> <mailto:ted.ietf@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Howdy,
>>
>> This is one the shortest drafts I've ever written: 
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hardie-dispatch-rfc3405-update/ 
>> <https://datatracker.ietf..org/doc/draft-hardie-dispatch-rfc3405-update/> 
>> .   Basically, RFC 3405 used to require that registrations in 
>> URI.ARPA be from the "IETF Tree". That tree was deprecated after the 
>> document was published.  As it happens, there are very few 
>> registrations in URI.ARPA, so we did not catch it and fix it before now.
>>
>> This draft updates RFC 3405 to require "permanent" scheme 
>> registrations.  The salient bit is this:
>>
>> All registrations in URI.ARPA MUST be for schemes which are permanent
>>     registrations, as they are described in BCP 35.
>>
>> I'm hoping for a quick dispatch of this, but happy to discuss.
>> regards,
>> Ted Hardie
>> _______________________________________________
>> dispatch mailing list
>> dispatch@ietf.org <mailto:dispatch@ietf.org>
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> dispatch mailing list
> dispatch@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email