Re: [dispatch] Tiny update to RFC 3405

[Ted Hardie <[e-mail]>]

Howdy,

On Mon, Jul 6, 2020 at 1:27 PM Timothy Mcsweeney <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Ted,
> Do you not want my scheme in the arpa zone?
>
>
I'm just trying to avoid a silly state, where we say do X but don't let
anyone do X.  If this is published, then we'll have a clear rule that
matches the current system.  But if the consensus turns out to be that the
IETF tree should return for the sole purpose of registering schemes going
into .arpa, I would go along with that as well.

I don't support allowing provisionals in the zone because they are
first-come-first-served as of RFC 7595 and some of the registrations are
very vendor specific (for example, many of the ms- uri schemes in the
provisional category at
https://www.iana.org/assignments/uri-schemes/uri-schemes.xml are
Microsoft-only).  That's not in-line with the purpose of .arpa as an
infrastructure domain.

If you disagree, please write up your proposal.  I trust DISPATCH will
ensure that it gets discussed in the same place as this proposal.

regards,

Ted



> On July 6, 2020 at 4:19 PM Ted Hardie <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 6, 2020 at 12:09 PM Timothy Mcsweeney < [e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
> Hi,
> >If I understand you correctly, you are arguing that because URI.arpa was
> not >depopulated when the IETF tree was dropped, registrations can still be
> made >according to the old rules as if there still were an IETF tree.
>
>
> I'm arguing that, as it sits right now, in order to insert a record into
> uri.arpa,
> you have to have a scheme name registered.
>
>
> RFC 3405 is pretty restrictive in its language:
>
> 3.1 URI.ARPA Registration
>
> 3.1.1 Only Schemes in the IETF Tree Allowed
>
>    In order to be inserted into the URI.ARPA zone, the subsequent URI
>    scheme MUST be registered under the IETF URI tree.  The requirements
>    for this tree are specified in [10].
>
> Given the "Only" and the RFC 2119 "MUST", I don't think a plain reading of
> the text supports the view that any URI registration is sufficient.
> Section 3.1.2 also reinforces that the registration must be prior and then
> the record insertion must pass IESG review; that section does not given the
> IESG the right to waive the requirements:
>
> 3.1.2 Scheme Registration Takes Precedence
>
>    The registration of a NAPTR record for a URI scheme MUST NOT precede
>    proper registration of that scheme and publication of a stable
>    specification in accordance with [10].  The IESG or its designated
>    expert will review the request for
>
>       1.  correctness and technical soundness
>
>       2.  consistency with the published URI specification, and
>
>       3.  to ensure that the NAPTR record for a DNS-based URI does not
>           delegate resolution of the URI to a party other than the
>           holder of the DNS name.  This last rule is to insure that a
>           given URI's resolution hint doesn't hijack (inadvertently or
>           otherwise) network traffic for a given domain.
>
> regards,
>
> Ted Hardie
>
>
>
>
>
> On July 6, 2020 at 2:51 PM Ted Hardie < [e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Howdy,
>
> On Mon, Jul 6, 2020 at 11:26 AM Timothy Mcsweeney < [e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
> Ted,
> >
> >Yes, this came up because of a proposed registration. Since it was yours,
> >perhaps you would like to provide the link to the group?
>
> There is already a mailing list for that.
>
>
> >Once DISPATCH decides where this ought to be discussed, we can discuss
> that
> >outcome or the update to BCP 35 to restore the category as alternatives.
>
>
> There should not be a discussion at all.
> 1.  Section 5 of RFC3405 isn't broken.  Maybe you were confusing it with
>      Section 5 or RFC4395?
>
>
> As I note in the extremely short document:
>
>    The document requires that registrations be in the "IETF
>    tree" of URI registrations.  The use of URI scheme name trees was
>    defined in RFC 2717 [RFC2717] but discontinued by RFC 4395 [RFC4395].
>    Since the use of trees was discontinued, there is no way in the
>    current process set out in BCP 35 [RFC7595] to meet the requirement.
>
>
> If we leave things as they are, no registrations can be made, because the
> category is gone.  We can change it to require permanent registrations
> instead (as this document suggests) or you could propose something
> different (e.g. updating BCP 35 to recreate the IETF tree for these
> registrations).
>
> 2. Regardless, any discussions should really wait until after upcoming
> registrations or appeals of those registrations, or appeals of those
> appeals are
> completed.
>
>
>
> >The current rules cannot work because they reference a category that no
> >longer exists. To put this differently, if they don't change, there can
> be
> >no more registrations in URI.arpa.
>
>
> The current rules are working just fine.
> HTTP, among others, are still in the uri.arpa zone proving that the
> RFC3405
> Section 3.1.1 reference [10] lives on through the obsoleted RFCs to the
> current
> spec and can be seen in totality in IANA's list of URIs.
>
>
> If I understand you correctly, you are arguing that because URI.arpa was
> not depopulated when the IETF tree was dropped, registrations can still be
> made according to the old rules as if there still were an IETF tree.
>
> That's not how the IETF process treats obsoleting BCPs; see the IESG
> statement at
> https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/designating-rfcs-historic-2014-07-20/.
>
>
> This situation has pointed out that there was a bug introduced by RFC 4395
> that was carried forward into RFC 7595, because they did not address the
> dependency on the removed IETF tree in BCP 65.  This document is one way to
> address that bug.  If you wish to suggest others, that's fine, but we still
> need DISPATCH to identify where the discussion should happen.
>
> regards,
>
> Ted
>
>
>
>
> On July 6, 2020 at 12:15 PM Ted Hardie < [e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Howdy,
>
> On Sat, Jul 4, 2020 at 2:28 AM Timothy Mcsweeney < [e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
> Ted,
> In your opening email to the 400 highly respectable people on this list
> you say:
> "As it happens, there are very few registrations in URI.ARPA, so we did
> not catch it and fix it before now."
>
> How did you "catch it"?
> Was there a pending registration?
> Is there still a pending registration?
>
>
> Yes, this came up because of a proposed registration.  Since it was yours,
> perhaps you would like to provide the link to the group?
>
> It would really be bad to try to change the rules while something was
> pending.
>
>
> The current rules cannot work because they reference a category that no
> longer exists. To put this differently, if they don't change, there can be
> no more registrations in URI.arpa.
>
> Once DISPATCH decides where this ought to be discussed, we can discuss
> that outcome or the update to BCP 35 to restore the category as
> alternatives.
>
> regards,
>
> Ted Hardie
>
>
>
> I can't speak for the others but some of them might want to know why after
> almost 20 years of there being zero problems with RFC3405 it suddenly needs
> to get "fixed".
> _______________________________________________
> dispatch mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>