Re: [Gen-art] Fwd: genart LC review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpc-netid-03.txt (and -04)

Lars Eggert <lars.eggert@nokia.com> Wed, 10 December 2008 12:12 UTC

Return-Path: <gen-art-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: gen-art-archive@optimus.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-gen-art-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0A023A68C3; Wed, 10 Dec 2008 04:12:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: gen-art@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 522703A6A73 for <gen-art@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Dec 2008 04:12:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.55
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.55 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.050, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Kw7DBD3fH-oy for <gen-art@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Dec 2008 04:12:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.fit.nokia.com (unknown [IPv6:2001:2060:40:1::123]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC79A3A68C3 for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Dec 2008 04:12:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:2060:40:2:219:e3ff:fe06:dc74] ([IPv6:2001:2060:40:2:219:e3ff:fe06:dc74]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.fit.nokia.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id mBACCGSm058850 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Wed, 10 Dec 2008 14:12:17 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from lars.eggert@nokia.com)
Message-Id: <26000D31-2ADB-4C2D-893E-474771A5248E@nokia.com>
From: Lars Eggert <lars.eggert@nokia.com>
To: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@estacado.net>
In-Reply-To: <D4E618C8-6ECF-43A9-9E4A-677877E58FCB@estacado.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v929.2)
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 14:12:15 +0200
References: <32E142FF-7258-48DA-A55F-61D12DA8A52D@nostrum.com> <4165FB23-C6E7-4C89-9599-EA03FC14A040@estacado.net> <da309ff64b204dd78e5c55509b42748d.squirrel@webmail.eisler.com> <2C7FE4DC-82CE-4FF8-9F52-58FB600CDF09@estacado.net> <2CB27E7D-2483-4F81-9129-B0C26FD92208@nokia.com> <D4E618C8-6ECF-43A9-9E4A-677877E58FCB@estacado.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.929.2)
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0.1 (mail.fit.nokia.com [IPv6:2001:2060:40:1::123]); Wed, 10 Dec 2008 14:12:19 +0200 (EET)
X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.94.2/8741/Wed Dec 10 09:07:43 2008 on fit.nokia.com
X-Virus-Status: Clean
Cc: "gen-art@ietf.org" <gen-art@ietf.org>, "mike@eisler.com" <mike@eisler.com>, "nfsv4-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <nfsv4-chairs@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Fwd: genart LC review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpc-netid-03.txt (and -04)
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/gen-art>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0154955164=="
Sender: gen-art-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: gen-art-bounces@ietf.org

Hi,

On 2008-12-5, at 20:45, Robert Sparks wrote:
> To be clear, I'm asking about the limits on the description and
> contact fields (text for people and email addresses) in this message,
> not the restriction on the netid length.
>
> Do we have, in the creation of other registries, explicit restrictions
> on how long the "who do you contact about this" field can be?

I don't know. I'd be OK with removing the limits on the "non- 
technical" fields, such as contact information, because IANA can use  
common sense to check those.

I would like to keep it for the netid itself, because IANA can't know  
whether a 1MB netid is appropriate or not (they don't understand the  
technology, but they do understand that postal addresses have a  
natural length limit.)

> I'm not objecting strongly to the limits on these fields, but I do
> find them odd, and they add work for IANA (who will have to check
> things against those limits), which seems in conflict with your
> comment about not doing any reviewing below?

IANA evaluated the document and is OK with it.

Lars

>
>
> RjS
>
> On Dec 5, 2008, at 12:54 AM, Lars Eggert wrote:
>
>> On 2008-12-5, at 1:12, Robert Sparks wrote:
>>>> Regarding the latter question I looked at some registries, and  
>>>> these
>>>> seemed to be acceptable limits. Regarding the former question, one
>>>> has to have limits. What happens if someone submits a 1MB, 1GB,  
>>>> 1TB,
>>>> etc.
>>>> entry?
>>>
>>> IANA says "You've got to be kidding".
>>>
>>> This hasn't been a problem, and IANA's not going to need this
>>> document
>>> as a shield
>>> to protect against someone trying to do something like that in the
>>> future.
>>
>> Is there any other registry that potentially names that are this
>> long? And with the first-com-first-served section of the registry,
>> IANA isn't supposed to do any reviewing.
>>
>> I think the limitation is reasonable and practical.
>>
>> Lars

_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art