Re: [dispatch] Tiny update to RFC 3405
Timothy Mcsweeney <tim@dropnumber.com> Wed, 05 August 2020 20:41 UTC
Return-Path: <tim@dropnumber.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 A56213A0F6F for <dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Aug 2020 13:41:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.798
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.798 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 OH1eoI1PpDLY for <dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Aug 2020 13:41:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mout.perfora.net (mout.perfora.net [74.208.4.196]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B2DF73A0F6A for <dispatch@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Aug 2020 13:41:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from oxusgaltgw05.schlund.de ([10.72.72.51]) by mrelay.perfora.net (mreueus003 [74.208.5.2]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0M4G3R-1ktbL70MpH-00rr7i; Wed, 05 Aug 2020 22:41:30 +0200
Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2020 16:41:29 -0400
From: Timothy Mcsweeney <tim@dropnumber.com>
Reply-To: Timothy Mcsweeney <tim@dropnumber.com>
To: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: DISPATCH WG <dispatch@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <814993411.851567.1596660089989@email.ionos.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+9kkMAVV+brppJ+YKQz_s42RWu8+znkBrEGxf9YjLbXEPyowQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+9kkMC2dFjvgEWKDDqThF3jJipcZeP4ZTofvhQ0oAx7NvB7tg@mail.gmail.com> <85664807-701C-4700-ABB7-D0434F14D6A0@nostrum.com> <ec630486-f2ad-992e-79cc-b2f904fda021@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <1580898449.190942.1594130597348@email.ionos.com> <3A1C3068-717D-4822-A110-9F91272B04CB@nostrum.com> <2116535970.9156.1594304410818@email.ionos.com> <CA+9kkMCgCMsGYtvH4fJ+GMbPdKJyeEMK8D2+nbZ2JTuVuEOECg@mail.gmail.com> <1777741348.21431.1594315737558@email.ionos.com> <CA+9kkMDW77xjbmK6FYjUh9by-vwRFH8i5TD20z6sWWLDxqeHgg@mail.gmail.com> <166222013.29010.1594323818783@email.ionos.com> <CA+9kkMAVV+brppJ+YKQz_s42RWu8+znkBrEGxf9YjLbXEPyowQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Priority: 3
Importance: Normal
X-Mailer: Open-Xchange Mailer v7.10.1-Rev32
X-Originating-Client: open-xchange-appsuite
X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:hutag6UjPO93D5dCFMLSYl1ROp3dkD1QueHEh9Zfqh7b+lkgRhg B3zkNM0uKuI6xiBQosryc7+V1rzWS6ee9VZoygXxKbtetM6iGhnE92hgODZC9YqdaVWM0wX qaymb50mSUC6KnH/aqIF9HlxpVICwjUP6CQBsCWw7o+EsIID9xo08EtdWVQJcEFJf41+nDl mz7QLFqLccsa8fMqYXvRw==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:Sf0IIPOxMmo=:Tu0PjLyfefbLOxrv1dK1Z2 HBNqR+zvnMgomok8QXw28XQfEkquQ+68OAKj2VHzPfhg2wu1oUsa8qh7lbH41OEOOfwtG/ihh jEyAEar/i2Pka2+0blHOLQNDBRVXRxQYsyXM3jrgaj/8qLsneobW8cMN0N8IGML2K+W9bwbi9 0VKLkY3wf4r/O+iXYlbhclG6ysUKy4IK2OD1GpQKcVSmNsBk7VaDHybRCVmilwHuc6uUbLu16 MFmQTduv7ixF4MfxS9XamYssF/CDwFgeAVkkQmv4dSmrFoYnXJNMQ1PVM9MEzDf3I/7RowozY LmML/LQkkBkNXp+orgmvInwZFrHrPuiY/EaBT42fK1XBBIn2nkOaf+WddsBWo7QNpqxyVz7DF R5c+zerNVF4UixOxUla4y/S9YAEiPtHP8qFZgFpyzmk3yVHgqmwpTfhVqV/RoVLTC/udd8H8Z 5CVdlO/UPn9gf/EkYMLvVToMzAVmG7bjgeYVPtJGyTW33/oW63oZwWMZirIFfs4i1BOY8w/3k 4nn1b4Z6i0SZrfWoM7sQSF2JsX2izzuSU02lD8FjUa1T3Ko+dc69WR86OcRTpYzn3PXJcqjxk JhfWD9XdwQCbmfY2W4zUO2go5DMkQ9o9FLjRJHqfipw8h1HpLd8g2bCBID4yBH2HYJ9TyC1sz SYGJkTl83fs1N8nHkAMOWEba3L83RefWG6sYFyO/rgtnsRdeSOdQzX49mD3s4ktHltNq0lkFE cds35M++Bc6hkkrtS8zX29Xyez65ysgvw40+/nB3YEjiEbgvb/P4TFQxpHX33IspRXtVjFbpI 7UXzbTjcM4i6Tt0FtfV/wCZybYsiW4EJX5XnS81vBqhi7avsqa8BwaPlZWO+8BlP37YdtHD
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dispatch/EF-l5BDnuxP-7-_rTO6Ksbbnb68>
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: Wed, 05 Aug 2020 20:41:34 -0000
On July 9, 2020 at 4:03 PM Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
You're talking about the [ https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3405#ref-10" rel="noopener nofollow">10] reference in section https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3405#section-3.1.1" rel="noopener nofollow">3.1.1 in 3405 and when I click on the reference it sends me right to https://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp35" rel="noopener nofollow">BCP35.
>The reason for the update is that IETF tree registrations *are* required.
That is now, scheme registration is required, including provisionals. See, no bug.
Tim
Quite simply, that's not what the document says. The previous effort to simply re-interpret it (see https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid2842" rel="nofollow">https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid2842) was already rejected.
regards,
Ted
On July 9, 2020 at 3:09 PM Ted Hardie < ted.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
Ted,
Section 2 (Updated Requirements) of your draft says:"All registrations in URI.ARPA MUST be for schemes which are permanent registrations, as they are described in BCP 35."
I take that as:We must update this because permanent registrations are not required. Otherwise there is no reason for an update.
The reason for the update is that IETF tree registrations *are* required. That effectively closes the registry, without the community having made the affirmative decision to do so. I want to fix that bug.
I currently think that the closest replacement to the IETF tree would be permanent registration and that we should fix this by requiring that. But I'm happy to see a clear draft espousing some other way of fixing the bug; if you have an idea about that, please write the draft.
regards,
Ted
If you are going to argue both sides, my draft and I will just stay out of it. Here is your pointer. https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-hardie-dispatch-rfc3405-update-01.html#section-2" rel="noopener nofollow">https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-hardie-dispatch-rfc3405-update-01.html#section-2
Tim
On July 9, 2020 at 11:57 AM Ted Hardie < ted.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
Howdy,
Hi Ben,
Thanks for the heads up on the deadline,
I am a little surprised that you are choosing to discuss this at all with pendingregistrations and I obviously disagree with that. But if there are more than 5 people besides Ted that think the current rules for provisionals in the zone
I don't think I've seen anyone but you argue that the current rules permit provisionals in the zone; if I have missed others reading the rules that way, I'd appreciate a pointer.
I think, though, that the key thing is to get some clarity on what the rules should be after the elimination of the IETF tree. Since you obviously disagree with my proposal, having your alternative spelled in a draft does seem like the best way forward. Wherever dispatch sends the question would then have two clear proposals to choose between.
regards,
Ted Hardie
_______________________________________________aretoo open and need to be further constrained then I will submit a draft that doesjust that before the deadline.
On July 8, 2020 at 10:36 PM Ben Campbell < ben@nostrum.com> wrote:
Hi Tim,
Do you plan to submit an internet-draft? If so, please be advised that the deadline for drafts prior to IETF108 is this coming Monday (7/13). If you submit a draft prior to the deadline, we can consider it along with Ted’s draft (either on the list or possibly in the IETF108 DISPATCH meeting).
Thanks,
Ben.
On Jul 7, 2020, at 9:03 AM, Timothy Mcsweeney < tim@dropnumber.com> wrote:
_______________________________________________Hi All,
Updating RFC3405 will necessarily require changes to RFC3401 as stated in itsintroduction. "This document will be updated and or obsoleted when changesare made to the DDDS specifications."
We are now changing two RFCs so I don't think this fits as a"simple administrative".
But, I may have a work around that is simple and also solves the provisional registration problem as stated by Ted. I could have ready in a day or so.
TimOn July 7, 2020 at 3:34 AM "Martin J. Dürst" < duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp> wrote:
On 23/06/2020 07:51, 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.)
Triggered by the recent discussion, I had a look at Ted's draft and themail up to today. To me, both AD sponsored and Dispatch WG lookreasonable, with a slight preference for the former (if asked to expresssuch a preference).
With respect to "pending registrations", I do not think these arerelevant, in particular because the thing in question isn't actually ascheme, as discussed on the relevant list.
I have one comment: The abstract currently reads"This document removes references to the IETF tree of URI registrationsfor registrations in URI.ARPA.". I found this hard to read, and I guessit's because of the "registrations for registrations" piece. Unless oneis very familiar with the matter at hand, it's easy to think that bothoccurrences of "registration" are referencing the same thing. While I'mat it, it would also be good if the abstract mentioned somethingpositive. I think a less normative version of (the single sentence thatis) Section 2 would serve well as the abstract.
Regards, Martin.
Thanks!
Ben (as co-chair)
On Jun 3, 2020, at 6:13 PM, Ted Hardie < 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/" rel="noopener nofollow">https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hardie-dispatch-rfc3405-update/ < https://datatracker.ietf..org/doc/draft-hardie-dispatch-rfc3405-update/" rel="noopener nofollow">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 permanentregistrations, 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 listhttps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch" rel="noopener nofollow">https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch
_______________________________________________dispatch mailing listhttps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch" rel="noopener nofollow">https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch
--Prof. Dr.sc. Martin J. DürstDepartment of Intelligent Information TechnologyCollege of Science and EngineeringAoyama Gakuin UniversityFuchinobe 5-1-10, Chuo-ku, Sagamihara252-5258 Japan
_______________________________________________dispatch mailing listhttps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch" rel="noopener nofollow">https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch
dispatch mailing list
dispatch@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch" rel="noopener nofollow">https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch
dispatch mailing list
dispatch@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch" rel="noopener nofollow">https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch
- [dispatch] Tiny update to RFC 3405 Ted Hardie
- Re: [dispatch] Tiny update to RFC 3405 Patrick McManus
- Re: [dispatch] Tiny update to RFC 3405 Scott Kitterman
- Re: [dispatch] Tiny update to RFC 3405 Robert Sparks
- Re: [dispatch] Tiny update to RFC 3405 Ben Campbell
- Re: [dispatch] Tiny update to RFC 3405 Ben Campbell
- Re: [dispatch] Tiny update to RFC 3405 Ted Hardie
- Re: [dispatch] Tiny update to RFC 3405 Ben Campbell
- Re: [dispatch] Tiny update to RFC 3405 Patrick McManus
- Re: [dispatch] Tiny update to RFC 3405 Scott Kitterman
- Re: [dispatch] Tiny update to RFC 3405 Ben Campbell
- Re: [dispatch] Tiny update to RFC 3405 Robert Sparks
- Re: [dispatch] Tiny update to RFC 3405 Mary Barnes
- Re: [dispatch] Tiny update to RFC 3405 Ben Campbell
- Re: [dispatch] Tiny update to RFC 3405 Timothy Mcsweeney
- Re: [dispatch] Tiny update to RFC 3405 Timothy Mcsweeney
- Re: [dispatch] Tiny update to RFC 3405 Ted Hardie
- Re: [dispatch] Tiny update to RFC 3405 Ted Hardie
- Re: [dispatch] Tiny update to RFC 3405 Timothy Mcsweeney
- Re: [dispatch] Tiny update to RFC 3405 Ted Hardie
- Re: [dispatch] Tiny update to RFC 3405 Timothy Mcsweeney
- Re: [dispatch] Tiny update to RFC 3405 Ted Hardie
- Re: [dispatch] Tiny update to RFC 3405 Timothy Mcsweeney
- Re: [dispatch] Tiny update to RFC 3405 Ted Hardie
- Re: [dispatch] Tiny update to RFC 3405 Ben Campbell
- Re: [dispatch] Tiny update to RFC 3405 Timothy Mcsweeney
- Re: [dispatch] Tiny update to RFC 3405 Timothy Mcsweeney
- Re: [dispatch] Tiny update to RFC 3405 Ben Campbell
- Re: [dispatch] Tiny update to RFC 3405 Martin J. Dürst
- Re: [dispatch] Tiny update to RFC 3405 Ted Hardie
- Re: [dispatch] Tiny update to RFC 3405 Timothy Mcsweeney
- Re: [dispatch] Tiny update to RFC 3405 Ben Campbell
- Re: [dispatch] Tiny update to RFC 3405 Timothy Mcsweeney
- Re: [dispatch] Tiny update to RFC 3405 Ted Hardie
- Re: [dispatch] Tiny update to RFC 3405 Timothy Mcsweeney
- Re: [dispatch] Tiny update to RFC 3405 Ted Hardie
- Re: [dispatch] Tiny update to RFC 3405 Timothy Mcsweeney
- Re: [dispatch] Tiny update to RFC 3405 Ted Hardie
- Re: [dispatch] Tiny update to RFC 3405 Timothy Mcsweeney
- Re: [dispatch] Tiny update to RFC 3405 Ben Campbell
- Re: [dispatch] Tiny update to RFC 3405 Martin J. Dürst
- Re: [dispatch] Tiny update to RFC 3405 Timothy Mcsweeney
- Re: [dispatch] Tiny update to RFC 3405 Timothy Mcsweeney
- Re: [dispatch] Tiny update to RFC 3405 Ted Hardie
- Re: [dispatch] Tiny update to RFC 3405 Timothy Mcsweeney
- Re: [dispatch] Tiny update to RFC 3405 Timothy Mcsweeney
- Re: [dispatch] Tiny update to RFC 3405 Timothy Mcsweeney
- Re: [dispatch] Tiny update to RFC 3405 Timothy Mcsweeney
- Re: [dispatch] Tiny update to RFC 3405 Timothy Mcsweeney
- Re: [dispatch] Tiny update to RFC 3405 Timothy Mcsweeney
- Re: [dispatch] Tiny update to RFC 3405 Timothy Mcsweeney
- Re: [dispatch] Tiny update to RFC 3405 Timothy Mcsweeney
- Re: [dispatch] Tiny update to RFC 3405 Timothy Mcsweeney
- Re: [dispatch] Tiny update to RFC 3405 Timothy Mcsweeney
- Re: [dispatch] Tiny update to RFC 3405 Timothy Mcsweeney
- Re: [dispatch] Tiny update to RFC 3405 Timothy Mcsweeney
- Re: [dispatch] Tiny update to RFC 3405 Timothy Mcsweeney
- Re: [dispatch] Tiny update to RFC 3405 Timothy Mcsweeney
- Re: [dispatch] Tiny update to RFC 3405 Eric Rescorla
- Re: [dispatch] Tiny update to RFC 3405 Timothy Mcsweeney
- Re: [dispatch] Tiny update to RFC 3405 Ben Campbell