My IESG Eval for draft-pechanec-pkcs11uri-19 (Was: PKCS#11 URI slot attributes & last call)

Pete Resnick <> Wed, 04 February 2015 15:51 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97C511A8AC1; Wed, 4 Feb 2015 07:51:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.011
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.011 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 23xqXnwAAOE5; Wed, 4 Feb 2015 07:51:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 087391A8AB5; Wed, 4 Feb 2015 07:51:01 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;;; q=dns/txt; s=qcdkim; t=1423065061; x=1454601061; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=qw8xDlX4JBK6d1OcLcNDMjqofI0jWKPjrgCt151x8JQ=; b=qGI+cVGKgQbX2rGxW+/hocLrjmDfjF5bGtv9Jl9EhLxWTOZ14GVfaTy9 i9b6BIqCmY1g32kKy0TkSqNusXxYx3P6XUxYQNuAjlxiT1ZBoK6LxOsOc 6qfe0eLtisSKEIOdTBg0MJwxlQTQeAA2pQLi+fiDIP72qjPUdV4jizcc6 s=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5600,1067,7701"; a="83472930"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 04 Feb 2015 07:51:00 -0800
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.09,518,1418112000"; d="scan'208";a="898391163"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-SHA; 04 Feb 2015 07:50:59 -0800
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.995.29; Wed, 4 Feb 2015 07:50:58 -0800
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2015 09:50:54 -0600
From: Pete Resnick <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; en-US; rv: Gecko/20100630 Eudora/3.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Nico Williams <>
Subject: My IESG Eval for draft-pechanec-pkcs11uri-19 (Was: PKCS#11 URI slot attributes & last call)
References: <alpine.GSO.2.00.1412161359100.4549@keflavik> <> <20141217230150.GB9443@localhost> <alpine.GSO.2.00.1412171513520.4549@keflavik> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Originating-IP: []
X-ClientProxiedBy: ( To (
Archived-At: <>
Cc: Darren J Moffat <>, Stef Walter <>, Jaroslav Imrich <>, "" <>, "" <>, Jan Pechanec <>, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2015 15:51:03 -0000

Normally I would just put this in my ballot, but since a change was made 
due to a Last Call comment that was discussed here (a discussion I 
missed at the time) I want to comment on this here to make sure there is 
consensus for either the change you made, or for what I will propose:

On 12/19/14 6:06 PM, Nico Williams wrote:
> One thing I just noticed is that you allow Unicode.  You might want to
> reference RFC3987 (IRIs), for, e.g., advice as to normalization.

This seems like an exceedingly bad idea to me, for a number of reasons:

1. The use of IRIs as protocol elements is recipe for disaster. I think 
we came to the conclusion long ago that if you are using something as a 
protocol element, it had better be a URI, and you had better 
percent-encode anything that was non-US-ASCII.

2. Normalization is discussed quite reasonably in 3986; 3987 is unlikely 
to add anything useful.

3. The 3987 is currently in a state of limbo. We're waiting to see what 
W3C ends up recommending for HTML5, and the IETF is likely to end up 
referencing that in the long run and not 3987.

Unless folks want to express a strong reason for this particular 
document to reference 3987, I really think you should remove any 
reference to it.


Pete Resnick<>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478