Re: Last Call: <draft-farrell-decade-ni-07.txt> (Naming Things with Hashes) to Proposed Standard

Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Mon, 02 July 2012 11:26 UTC

Return-Path: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12F9221F8C22 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Jul 2012 04:26:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.449
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id djjRqOUD5CRD for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Jul 2012 04:26:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from scss.tcd.ie (hermes.scss.tcd.ie [IPv6:2001:770:10:200:889f:cdff:fe8d:ccd2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A5D321F8B67 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Jul 2012 04:26:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1709154214; Mon, 2 Jul 2012 12:26:43 +0100 (IST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cs.tcd.ie; h= content-transfer-encoding:content-type:in-reply-to:references :subject:mime-version:user-agent:from:date:message-id:received :received:x-virus-scanned; s=cs; t=1341228403; bh=y604yZpiUMmxvd /7E2p0g+qsR7xB63Ss7q1IAR8fBJ4=; b=Nked7e7ybWL+2jnrmLu4MxnEFD7lzx eWFFFGsYd9JuAxvAkiXSPTwXdAlB/Wml9V7iEGOhXADo/PmQYCPWxNSIUpArUlAe u1tZ693nsTrdG9K0FXhmw/J1aGiFzXTDqNgzF5fjQq5h2HfiJuWE6ECbPamzm8SU dIq2ASGXRs19eG5jT6cRRk/Rw/BFCyLGAvY2kEiFFDpQ/j70gU+kkbp7eEKXNfoz UHvBTisC309KAdb5av603AapuAFBObqCg+MhSDR4AW397ZH993nH/kiSOVVpdmPo S0wPQZpaHopbe5auf2fZJfzsAo8dYkrCVYZjguV/FyWEqJk5N5GtwBtw==
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at scss.tcd.ie
Received: from scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10027) with ESMTP id 11iNhEi7OhFy; Mon, 2 Jul 2012 12:26:43 +0100 (IST)
Received: from [10.3.10.185] (unknown [193.1.186.252]) by smtp.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 94907154213; Mon, 2 Jul 2012 12:26:41 +0100 (IST)
Message-ID: <4FF18572.2000905@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2012 12:26:42 +0100
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120615 Thunderbird/13.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Martin_J=2E_D=FCrst=22?= <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-farrell-decade-ni-07.txt> (Naming Things with Hashes) to Proposed Standard
References: <20120604141804.23098.42455.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <4FE4E19F.2050400@cs.tcd.ie> <4FE83EF5.1050000@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <4FE85424.9000409@cs.tcd.ie> <4FE998E9.9010809@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <4FE99C75.9010309@cs.tcd.ie> <4FF180DC.3090003@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
In-Reply-To: <4FF180DC.3090003@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>, ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2012 11:26:49 -0000

Hi Martin,

On 07/02/2012 12:07 PM, "Martin J. Dürst" wrote:
> Hello Stephen,
> 
> On 2012/06/26 20:26, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>>
>> Hi again Martin,
>>
>> On 06/26/2012 12:11 PM, "Martin J. Dürst" wrote:
>>> So the question is really, what's the use case, and what's just a
>>> consequence of that use case. If confirmation of already available
>>> resources (e.g. like a fingerprint) is the (main?) use case, and the
>>> greater weight on "speakability" just a design consequence, then it
>>> makes sense to have two separate things.
>>
>> Yes, confirmation is the main current use-case for nih as I understand
>> it and have said previously.
> 
> I sincerely wish you had said this so clearly much, much earlier, or
> even better that it had been in the draft in cristal clear language. We
> could have avoided a lot of useless discussion.

I agree this has been harder than it ought have been for some
reason. I guess that just happens sometimes.

> 
>> (Of course the resource might not yet
>> be present, so "already available" isn't quite right, but that's a
>> nit.)
>>
>> Have we beaten this to death sufficiently now? I hope so;-)
>>
>> If you want to suggest a sentence that says that, feel free.
> 
> I really don't think it should be my job to explain this. There are
> enough coauthors on the draft who should be in a much better position
> than myself to write such text :-(.

Well, you seemed motivated:-)

> Anyway, here is a try:
> 
> - In the abstract, replace "and binary and human "speakable" formats for
> these names" by ", a binary form, and a form for confirming the presence
> (or absence) of resources".
> 
> - In the introduction, replace "and a
>    human-speakable text form that could be used, e.g. for reading out
>    (parts of) the name over a voice connection." with
>    "and a form optimized for confirming the presence (or absence) of
>    resources by humans.".
> 
> - Change the title of Section 7 from "Human-speakable Format" to "Format
> for Resource Confirmation"
> 
> - Replace the first sentence at the start of Section 7 to say:
> There is often a need for humans to confirm that a particular resource,
> e.g. a public key, is already present, or to discover its absence.
> 
> - Change "("speaking" the value of an ni URI)" to "confirm the presence
> or absence of a resource")
> 
> - Nuke the second paragraph of section 7 (the one that starts with "The
> justification for using a URI"). The stuff it says about IDNs, for
> example, isn't really appropriate for IETF standardization.
> 
> - In the example section, change "Human-speakable form of a name" to
> "Form for resource confirmation" (three occurrences).

I could live with more-or-less all of that. Will check if coauthors
can similarly. I think "human-speakable" still needs to be mentioned
though, since that's why its designed as it is, but I like those
changes generally.

> I'd also change the "nih:" scheme to something like "fingerprint:", and
> allow the insertion of delimiter characters (allowing e.g.
> nih:3;5326-9057-e12f-e2b7-4ba0-7c89-2560a2;f instead of
> nih:3;53269057e12fe2b74ba07c892560a2;f because the former should be much
> easier to manipulate by humans), 

Would rather not change the uri scheme name at this point, unless
a load of people prefer it, but the idea of optional "-" delimiters
seems useful all right.

> but I guess I'd again be shot down for
> "proposing something like this at such a late date" (I note we are still
> in IETF Last Call).

Just:-) But improvements don't stop at the end of IETF LC and your
suggestions above are, I think, improvements.

Any other opinions before I go make changes along these lines?

Cheers,
S.

> 
> 
> Regards,   Martin.
> 
>