Re: [Gen-art] [core] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-core-resource-directory-25

Christian Amsüss <> Tue, 03 November 2020 17:21 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E09BC3A0DEE; Tue, 3 Nov 2020 09:21:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id T789swjeiMUD; Tue, 3 Nov 2020 09:21:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 50ABE3A0DD5; Tue, 3 Nov 2020 09:21:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3F919406FC; Tue, 3 Nov 2020 18:21:14 +0100 (CET)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a02:b18:c13b:8010:a800:ff:fede:b1bf]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DECD4AB; Tue, 3 Nov 2020 18:21:12 +0100 (CET)
Received: from (unknown [IPv6:2a02:b18:c13b:8010:be1b:33a0:9df5:4f6f]) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7E51F34; Tue, 3 Nov 2020 18:21:12 +0100 (CET)
Received: (nullmailer pid 52395 invoked by uid 1000); Tue, 03 Nov 2020 17:21:12 -0000
Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2020 18:21:12 +0100
From: Christian Amsüss <>
To: Russ Housley <>
Message-ID: <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="MW5yreqqjyrRcusr"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <> <>
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] [core] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-core-resource-directory-25
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2020 17:21:22 -0000

(This is one of the point-to-point follow-up mails on the RD -25
reviews; for the preface, please see the preceding mail on "The various
positions on draft-ietf-core-resource-directory-25" at

> Section 7.1 says: "... can be transported in the subject."  I think
> you should say "subject field" or "subject name".  Do you mean to
> exclude the subject alternative name?



> Section 7.1.1 says:
>    Registrants that are prepared to pick a different identifier when
>    their initial attempt at registration is unauthorized should pick an
>    identifier at least twice as long as the expected number of
>    registrants; registrants without such a recovery options should pick
>    significantly longer endpoint names (e.g. using UUID URNs [RFC4122]).
> I think that the reason for the  recommendation on length is to reduce
> the likelihood of name collision.  However, it is not clear to me why
> this is linked in any way to authorization failures on the first
> attempt to register.


With growing numbers of participants, the chances some collision happening
stays at a constant level even with the 2n length due to the birthday paradox,
which is why the collision on the initial attempt is highlighted.

A bit of clarifying information was added in, without attempting to
verbosely lay out the whole background.

> Nits: [...]


All addressed in

> IDnits reports:
>  == There are 3 instances of lines with non-ascii characters in the
>     document.


Two of them are in an author's name, the third is in an example and relevant
there (as it talks about variations of a representation containing non-ascii

>  == There are 1 instance of lines with multicast IPv4 addresses in the
>     document.  If these are generic example addresses, they should be
>     changed to use the 233.252.0.x range defined in RFC 5771


That instance is a suggestion to IANA, it will be replaced with the actually
assigned address.

>  == There are 3 instances of lines with non-RFC3849-compliant IPv6
>     addresses in the document.  If these are example addresses, they
>     should be changed.