Re: [dispatch] Tiny update to RFC 3405
Timothy Mcsweeney <tim@dropnumber.com> Mon, 06 July 2020 20:27 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 4C5F93A0A66 for <dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Jul 2020 13:27:28 -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 bJbF-20U99Vc for <dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Jul 2020 13:27:27 -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 BB3F53A0A65 for <dispatch@ietf.org>; Mon, 6 Jul 2020 13:27:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from oxuslxaltgw01.schlund.de ([10.72.76.57]) by mrelay.perfora.net (mreueus003 [74.208.5.2]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MVNsG-1kQD0m3Fp0-00YmCf; Mon, 06 Jul 2020 22:27:22 +0200
Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2020 16:27:22 -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>, "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Message-ID: <1990424976.229638.1594067242698@email.ionos.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+9kkMDusiovYiyG8=hhyS8dsQ9WugZ2o0vLfXv62TGa6VrDzA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1007260719.140376.1593854488478@email.ionos.com> <CA+9kkMD+v7FDSPUN0AdTrxA8=w1mf46xGvzJksL6qGFErHYpHg@mail.gmail.com> <22863747.195824.1594059994823@email.ionos.com> <CA+9kkMC3JO4bVtPc3irSpfgZ_gvbhrSpfZ69Sur8LMM=vTMf1A@mail.gmail.com> <1557624035.199224.1594062567206@email.ionos.com> <CA+9kkMDusiovYiyG8=hhyS8dsQ9WugZ2o0vLfXv62TGa6VrDzA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
Importance: Normal
X-Mailer: Open-Xchange Mailer v7.10.1-Rev31
X-Originating-Client: open-xchange-appsuite
X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:5qlarKpKc96i4sDk0719xCfE2oNV0Mi3cGLcJVD3RcFNfwzb/PF USuqo+aTb2lyE2MAEX3c7bjE+BDZGjE+ah5/eCG1ApnbUtCNFrgfo1we+g8S9Kusd35FEtJ 2Y2l97YgIBqekrkI4Hplxnfn38tyZzwx7pR12HHUj5QIbaOKwJRsi8kC299xRnuQpkxWpAk nii7Qu0IYDk11UDxKAXGw==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:OwKsFb/LTXM=:/yvniz8BgLWgOa4ZQHD0We /AyetsiwlCfgXIe3NnMP/O9AW5x3CrC71SdMzBbtBCqK0AqRmcHVHFre56RAqHEWvrrO49ZX8 DnaT5eqIOxaqRmVwsKw/oum6Tlq3JD3zx65LWnKerFR9qw4dwMrVvqh8NQfx+aun7xtOTrUBu cnfy9y3hVJZUYNvJbppG0d7C2QYgKD6HysVt3ZU1OgoCmb2gzDm/af5EUy50TAF+25vFmKQ8h v1DDPyMSr8Q920GPk+QsU3LTPSsKcvTdU8WHxYF4+odUYO4jAptlmT1C+R9T5PZoToeujYI5j EjZG6LabudZghfIWFx9WRWXNV8MsSbesLLHBLmdmM0fP5dfogrytNqICDImHdSMIgfIcn1DsM 6HAIzyKtYYBhbaV0goLgEVj8cjDlHq2bjp8mc7e0GvAtocylkRheL1sE1DjaIxJKdRu0K0cN+ ZPngdMvu57a11W6yH+/4WrDHvw75KXwfTo5TD5qy5vJe3kmL+KpQGJRDnSeecv6xl7qL9GUle AP4CBG5tmy85uUiRSoK080ZzRYzCtjOk1/v6mG23SRJDkHoLe/5GYAsa6xA/JHEgB0kjjyxIN E7nXP1Gga3qzk1ODjT2KHjYW2bPvrSSEPfbB51Pzqem1VU0gd/KXbArq4doGkEiX/avXVcsKu YXmY/7AlpWP0N/yF+x+b5y8Sdm3OEEc4k3ePfrCR1ZoDejKoTmQJUoOKd6LiMthpTCrKv1pGH 2/JhZo4nf0fLTk6SnidfMVmUoTaQTFbiWlaY9lPMwC/n4OZp+LmPEwWLep7TKcj2JaCNfZSxs u24ztpsOewv7y51SQcP2UEzZL2tI//vrNir8dm1J/0VaqIFWAsABjWDVgF9l+fBA17LosXa
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dispatch/ZEaLfII9Xg2qhiRpTaEe1w3__Mc>
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: Mon, 06 Jul 2020 20:27:28 -0000
On July 6, 2020 at 4:19 PM Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com> 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:
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 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].
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 < ted.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
Howdy,
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/" rel="noopener nofollow">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 < ted.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
Howdy,
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
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