Re: [dispatch] Tiny update to RFC 3405

[Timothy Mcsweeney <[e-mail]>]

You're talking about the [ https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3405#ref-10" rel="nofollow">10] reference in section https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3405#section-3.1.1" rel="nofollow">3.1.1 in 3405 and when I click on the reference it sends me right to https://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp35" rel="nofollow">BCP35.

>The reason for the update is that IETF tree registrations *are* required.

That is now, scheme registration is required, including provisionals.  See, no bug.

Tim

On July 9, 2020 at 3:09 PM Ted Hardie <[e-mail]> wrote:

On Thu, Jul 9, 2020 at 10:28 AM Timothy Mcsweeney < [e-mail]> wrote:

Ted, 

Section 2 (Updated Requirements) of your draft says:

"All registrations in URI.ARPA MUST be for schemes which are permanent registrations, as they are described in BCP 35."

I take that as:

We must update this because permanent registrations are not required.  Otherwise there is no reason for an update. 

The reason for the update is that IETF tree registrations *are* required.  That effectively closes the registry, without the community having made the affirmative decision to do so.  I want to fix that bug. 

I currently think that the closest replacement to the IETF tree would be permanent registration and that we should fix this by requiring that.  But I'm happy to see a clear draft espousing some other way of fixing the bug; if you have an idea about that, please write the draft.

regards,

Ted

If you are going to argue both sides, my draft and I will just stay out of it.  Here is your pointer.   https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-hardie-dispatch-rfc3405-update-01.html#section-2" rel="noopener nofollow">https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-hardie-dispatch-rfc3405-update-01.html#section-2

Tim

On July 9, 2020 at 11:57 AM Ted Hardie < [e-mail]> wrote:

Howdy,

On Thu, Jul 9, 2020 at 7:20 AM Timothy Mcsweeney < [e-mail]> wrote:

Hi Ben, 

Thanks for the heads up on the deadline,

I am a little surprised that you are choosing to discuss this at all with pending 

registrations and I obviously disagree with that.  But if there are more than 5 people besides Ted that think the current rules for provisionals in the zone

I don't think I've seen anyone but you argue that the current rules permit provisionals in the zone; if I have missed others reading the rules that way, I'd appreciate a pointer.

I think, though, that the key thing is to get some clarity on what the rules should be after the elimination of the IETF tree.  Since you obviously disagree with my proposal, having your alternative spelled in a draft does seem like the best way forward.  Wherever dispatch sends the question would then have two clear proposals to choose between.

regards,

Ted Hardie

are

too open and need to be further constrained then I will submit a draft that does

just that before the deadline. 

On July 8, 2020 at 10:36 PM Ben Campbell < [e-mail]> 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 < [e-mail]> wrote:

Hi All,

Updating RFC3405 will necessarily require changes to RFC3401 as stated in its 

introduction.  "This document will be updated and or obsoleted when changes

are 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.

Tim

On July 7, 2020 at 3:34 AM "Martin J. Dürst" < [e-mail]> 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 the

mail up to today. To me, both AD sponsored and Dispatch WG look

reasonable, with a slight preference for the former (if asked to express

such a preference).

With respect to "pending registrations", I do not think these are

relevant, in particular because the thing in question isn't actually a

scheme, as discussed on the relevant list.

I have one comment: The abstract currently reads

"This document removes references to the IETF tree of URI registrations

for registrations in URI.ARPA.". I found this hard to read, and I guess

it's because of the "registrations for registrations" piece. Unless one

is very familiar with the matter at hand, it's easy to think that both

occurrences of "registration" are referencing the same thing. While I'm

at it, it would also be good if the abstract mentioned something

positive. I think a less normative version of (the single sentence that

is) 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 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

[e-mail]

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch" rel="noopener nofollow">https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch

_______________________________________________

dispatch mailing list

[e-mail]

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch" rel="noopener nofollow">https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch

--

Prof. Dr.sc. Martin J. Dürst

Department of Intelligent Information Technology

College of Science and Engineering

Aoyama Gakuin University

Fuchinobe 5-1-10, Chuo-ku, Sagamihara

252-5258 Japan

_______________________________________________

dispatch mailing list

[e-mail]

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch" rel="noopener nofollow">https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch

_______________________________________________
dispatch mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch" rel="noopener nofollow">https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch

 

_______________________________________________
dispatch mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch" rel="noopener nofollow">https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch