IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dispatch] Tiny update to RFC 3405

Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com> Tue, 09 June 2020 21:18 UTC

Return-Path: <sklist@kitterman.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 E8B6D3A08E7 for <dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 14:18:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 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, SPF_HELO_FAIL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=neutral reason="invalid (unsupported algorithm ed25519-sha256)" header.d=kitterman.com header.b=QK6hD6mD; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kitterman.com header.b=GCWWzOQe
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 nM3bLBSrjcso for <dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 14:18:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from interserver.kitterman.com (interserver.kitterman.com [IPv6:2604:a00:6:1039:225:90ff:feaa:b169]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0B67A3A08E5 for <dispatch@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 14:18:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from interserver.kitterman.com (interserver.kitterman.com [IPv6:2604:a00:6:1039:225:90ff:feaa:b169]) by interserver.kitterman.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A6059F80316 for <dispatch@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 17:18:32 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kitterman.com; i=@kitterman.com; q=dns/txt; s=201903e; t=1591737512; h=from : to : subject : date : message-id : in-reply-to : references : mime-version : content-transfer-encoding : content-type : from; bh=TeYhlp8V1+IW2oM8JhCvOwgUOGFVCXrjVXgMBReQez0=; b=QK6hD6mDwEy7hKn873n0qAOttogn5Op9lXhiR6hSPQzwJNqUKbRweDDRDTecl8/5C9Ceu SsnbF9CVkdPnXbvBg==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kitterman.com; i=@kitterman.com; q=dns/txt; s=201903r; t=1591737512; h=from : to : subject : date : message-id : in-reply-to : references : mime-version : content-transfer-encoding : content-type : from; bh=TeYhlp8V1+IW2oM8JhCvOwgUOGFVCXrjVXgMBReQez0=; b=GCWWzOQe/U1MGnIfj9+6AYjfDmXeCnTvdLTckbBpjTReXbRJKyhdKScaJpfmpC50nPX1M fxC2G3X9laGQW+hHlNyS9vy5nknQ5ZgzMJzI8bLFciy5pAMi1qN3UlYwojwaz/y7cYxUMDk iDE1Pg8zOUoJjclEuYAVdJDRYB3nlST4wFfq8w4Cm6euIxUarEbuuhJNfGI56n0Ys+D84vQ ipgqhWtrpaR8nsR1HpcLbpnalzxs/EmKQUOeXqenMMIZsD2/dRv/cd3C6d8QIi2lCvQRjwj fUKx2VUvGCwIKOUBvOtNfBoSUkAh8Oe7nIYY8vZkqwY4D+Punfra76wRipcA==
Received: from sk-desktop.localnet (static-72-81-252-22.bltmmd.fios.verizon.net [72.81.252.22]) by interserver.kitterman.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78DEAF801F6 for <dispatch@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 17:18:32 -0400 (EDT)
From: Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com>
To: Dispatch WG <dispatch@ietf.org>
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2020 17:18:32 -0400
Message-ID: <2011234.mNb5IxkY0x@sk-desktop>
In-Reply-To: <CAOdDvNpKBuaEEpTB+S0V-7Q4hm297G-cAbMATs2FFk84FLa5_Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+9kkMC2dFjvgEWKDDqThF3jJipcZeP4ZTofvhQ0oAx7NvB7tg@mail.gmail.com> <49903CF4-A164-4350-AC1F-4DF7A1A75440@nostrum.com> <CAOdDvNpKBuaEEpTB+S0V-7Q4hm297G-cAbMATs2FFk84FLa5_Q@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dispatch/GfR8ExKVBwrqiWimVhIuW8ctOB8>
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, 09 Jun 2020 21:18:38 -0000

Thanks.  I have no issue with that.  I think it makes sense.

I was worried alternative to a mailing list was going to turn out to be some 
horrendous piece of web forum software.

Scott K

On Tuesday, June 9, 2020 5:12:45 PM EDT Patrick McManus wrote:
> I asked the question in an open ended spirit with all of the usual dispatch
> outcomes on the table. (but expressed it in phone keyboard speak - sorry.)
> 
> I would anticipate that this would generate an AD sponsored recommendation
> due to its nature, but it would be nice to hear a few more comments
> responsive to that before considering the consensus question..
> 
> On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 4:57 PM Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> wrote:
> > I suspect Patrick meant “outside of a working group”. Patrick?
> > 
> > > On Jun 4, 2020, at 7:29 PM, Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com>
> > 
> > wrote:
> > > What did you have in mind as an alternative to an mailing list?
> > > 
> > > Scott K
> > > 
> > > On June 5, 2020 12:08:08 AM UTC, Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com>
> > 
> > wrote:
> > >> does the group have any thoughts on what the appropriate dispatch for
> > >> Ted's
> > >> work (below) would be?
> > >> 
> > >> We certainly can do this outside of a list if there is participation
> > >> and
> > >> rough consensus.. would be good to build that skill in this remote-only
> > >> period, right?
> > >> 
> > >> -Patrick
> > >> 
> > >> On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 7:13 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/
> > >> 
> > >> <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
> > >>> 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