Re: [dispatch] Tiny update to RFC 3405
Timothy Mcsweeney <tim@dropnumber.com> Wed, 11 November 2020 16:37 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 20F1A3A08AE for <dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 08:37:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 zpGJFIpK8KjF for <dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 08:37:13 -0800 (PST)
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 9D1F53A0855 for <dispatch@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 08:37:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from oxuslxaltgw03.schlund.de ([10.72.76.59]) by mrelay.perfora.net (mreueus002 [74.208.5.2]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0Lhxsi-1jzzeU0FUo-00n7A1; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 17:37:12 +0100
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2020 11:37:11 -0500
From: Timothy Mcsweeney <tim@dropnumber.com>
To: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: DISPATCH WG <dispatch@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <64765374.11952.1605112631721@email.ionos.com>
In-Reply-To: <22863747.195824.1594059994823@email.ionos.com>
References: <1007260719.140376.1593854488478@email.ionos.com> <CA+9kkMD+v7FDSPUN0AdTrxA8=w1mf46xGvzJksL6qGFErHYpHg@mail.gmail.com> <22863747.195824.1594059994823@email.ionos.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Priority: 3
Importance: Normal
X-Mailer: Open-Xchange Mailer v7.10.3-Rev26
X-Originating-Client: open-xchange-appsuite
X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:KpOO9uyr16Zz20Tr2gK5OOB6HIZXaC78Zhel6m+oMbIvp4sjx9M pBXDyzy6IsJNh+bvrAtJke6zArMtWThsk41uAh8rGLNLRk4wU150Ev8ad/eU3XD4DiPpPnV tWsXPMrzZOXoHMxt80dOO0zi5C8d7MZLOA+iCAcg+puRKoQeOKFJi7vFjsQ1kwlh90wPztz FT2dhiYYuxPqAfTkjeltQ==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:JYkLMVNLKwo=:floYVlSMQU4UzMXU/seTS+ /cj74dDgWvboK77Drj0alWsXqvD53QtKcrbFekVYj3uLAgJCwz7uDYF25UmKJICAq/phAVuSe 7r/ZVQHUA+Z89H7tVUfdN3FRVhXkH+GLxU3Aj3ytypxCrid/Rk1TZNzhnP4P4MVa0EW7pYVPt evQsVglXqWDCwVRuc0x3Fjzh1KRK+6WUCprucbTonEorV4isMGxxFky6xQupttom+heBo343B rF3jaQ1fTQFM2rvzXMsHmp0Pym+wN880/6WKKHaING22Z5z8j36gM22T2nSowmkiVoOsBJHRa L/Vzr6mZ9NrUWl2DZVJY5UfcQeXKFrNaAPDP4uS2dGSB8teDaQgz6uymDKXmjTKGsx9hL1nrV iDfJ8h/MWw78/jtKmHJ9j1iq/f+uF/LF2sg9XXXTOOisVYhzBjXN3EVbXYDPfkiMbxqu7XAav SAbH/Pa3vw==
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dispatch/lrUduESDY7PnqfChxrO1n7fAJXI>
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: Wed, 11 Nov 2020 16:37:15 -0000
text version: 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? 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. > On 07/06/2020 2:26 PM Timothy Mcsweeney <tim@dropnumber.com> 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? > 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. > > > > > > On July 6, 2020 at 12:15 PM Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Howdy, > > > > > > On Sat, Jul 4, 2020 at 2:28 AM Timothy Mcsweeney < tim@dropnumber.com> 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 > > > 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