Re: [dispatch] Tiny update to RFC 3405
Timothy Mcsweeney <tim@dropnumber.com> Thu, 09 July 2020 14:20 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 E65603A0BC7 for <dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Jul 2020 07:20:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.795
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.795 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=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 1YMZ_fNlbrdw for <dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Jul 2020 07:20:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mout.perfora.net (mout.perfora.net [74.208.4.197]) (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 365723A0B8F for <dispatch@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Jul 2020 07:20:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from oxusgaltgw04.schlund.de ([10.72.72.50]) by mrelay.perfora.net (mreueus002 [74.208.5.2]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MehbC-1kHpa74BHk-00OKEu; Thu, 09 Jul 2020 16:20:12 +0200
Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2020 10:20:10 -0400
From: Timothy Mcsweeney <tim@dropnumber.com>
Reply-To: Timothy Mcsweeney <tim@dropnumber.com>
To: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
Cc: Patrick McManus <patrick.ducksong@gmail.com>, DISPATCH WG <dispatch@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <2116535970.9156.1594304410818@email.ionos.com>
In-Reply-To: <3A1C3068-717D-4822-A110-9F91272B04CB@nostrum.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>
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:K1:9lJ7ix/PAxXM5q1oHqypz7mgcZDEQipuunGhlpxmD0plLqpPNmN TBevYTzp8qNGXGvo/O0a2MBX+kMw63LSrVBojh8Rf75zFCeXldLPOPicOF7P+dbgw0EGtez y+soXg7DaIsBu0pz/gYcbYs56VwdXnuYk57//WUH67ca9H+vSPKYZuimEFUlJ97iLxFlZoo iZfOvH/dovoJatEJAUPVA==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:LANALAv1Omw=:K7v/tN68PHVZq1XQSxdfTb 0Fojw81xSwDUKqptIAHfXcC8DTip9/v0cfXUhW9mBY7GcegBw0ZZ8FYP4X6ozvmqAgJGjscks Lz3W03Oc9QlxekECyuPDoGWp0Cl9HZ8u9BuA5BPT9Y+7mLZwFARA61TQ3p4g8I8tLYtnTdY0+ oVxX77XZmWTHVdF+BmueGINgCxLYgWJTxACemEY0eNdznzE+23yai59GG2F9Ny1ZLYgW6LjQR ep8ERlr/DKjiRpaZRmp0GAnBU27RcgoDhRQNtks+0DZ+jsOKZs8Kb+1CBlYjNUfxtPWzwuFLK G/NAXtC4HuaqQxwQlzhEjTQHZPo7yEqchfAeHcJfzh78uhlHiz5B6SkYgOokEeuKN/mIwrmUX d8NRueus0hfGdf5TiI3heUAao0zU3UtZ48wRZyu2spVcToJO0suByg7rylxEC5ooxi9iQWxIE NEcRlBNmAl0sBVe/kyz8SHw5dW3PqOwUBMVawlKADX51oUSU5055/WLg1Fha7QGt9kaJzPpak Yf2sCAs4Jlahjx0yrO/Vx9eH8yKzNNNLoQfC7pktRA5BdSrRZKnbRwARLzzxHAwd4WvwxamFh MNboQNhZEL7jmmcX0RVOrjXRNNPYZq0C+snZVlIxgQK3UmzoA6HMrvNCVPNUzauruVRiZomU1 h8YTfMeGZq5EbkGdonW+TlL1aGTFbuZK2VilEbb6zVm9TNJFjc1dXFPI0hHFhD9HshqSsTJ/S Gxu1iISPY9pDDCOpQSojU8fr98XAcNjtpdVyLCNF0jfMN/R7pWJRLih2wjKRmQNxFZZ2NBPzk vLeTo2QyZkwOlI2Ke7BIqQAHL7aBaA/pFVw+zEBROsDi4c5CKadMeqAEJPWuPsZvBFf+KRC
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dispatch/F_FtkNrpw2FlQoBwdziTcBq8dPY>
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: Thu, 09 Jul 2020 14:20:25 -0000
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
- [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