IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dispatch] Tiny update to RFC 3405

Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> Tue, 09 June 2020 20:57 UTC

Return-Path: <ben@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 B7AC53A086E for <dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 13:57:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.402
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.402 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.276, MAY_BE_FORGED=0.001, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" 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 9Nr66RDboNTE for <dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 13:57:57 -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 708613A086B for <dispatch@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 13:57:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bens-macbook.lan (mta-70-120-123-175.stx.rr.com [70.120.123.175] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id 059Kvr9Z039223 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 9 Jun 2020 15:57:55 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nostrum.com; s=default; t=1591736275; bh=QMDZIxWo01t0Ivcs7ptBSmDu4DyGfw5kWfYT+MePk9o=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=gNzdPbiW9qy1TCMLOJfCruN9gmkBhdBABA8L+Z9tjFHbrCHVRo5nLfmXpqxQi5odl 2K0DjFS0hcxzsjD8/+wvUxjgj6ghVvhuQkAohXn1D85M8upKa4Qc9ClCyPFLNrU4f0 Xq5BlAi9U4xJI495njSLfDigb4gV0io6RdCgWDJM=
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host mta-70-120-123-175.stx.rr.com [70.120.123.175] (may be forged) claimed to be bens-macbook.lan
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.80.23.2.2\))
From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <836C0462-1643-45E2-AD78-84B1F1BF3534@kitterman.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2020 15:57:45 -0500
Cc: Dispatch WG <dispatch@ietf.org>, Patrick McManus <patrick.ducksong@gmail.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <49903CF4-A164-4350-AC1F-4DF7A1A75440@nostrum.com>
References: <CA+9kkMC2dFjvgEWKDDqThF3jJipcZeP4ZTofvhQ0oAx7NvB7tg@mail.gmail.com> <CAOdDvNo36eOKn0ZWi67LeO_YEhTJoj=U0uBh02b9aD3RdggE+A@mail.gmail.com> <836C0462-1643-45E2-AD78-84B1F1BF3534@kitterman.com>
To: Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.80.23.2.2)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dispatch/Uwe5_VMT6hetqVtiKw2p-xBXefQ>
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 20:57:59 -0000

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