IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [art] Artart last call review of draft-ietf-core-coap-tcp-tls-07

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Tue, 09 May 2017 21:30 UTC

Return-Path: <mnot@mnot.net>
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 2066F129A9C; Tue, 9 May 2017 14:30:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.703
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.703 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6x7EUvCv7wvd; Tue, 9 May 2017 14:30:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxout-07.mxes.net (mxout-07.mxes.net [216.86.168.182]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 58C12127977; Tue, 9 May 2017 14:30:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.14] (unknown [124.189.96.43]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 435BF22E2B7; Tue, 9 May 2017 17:30:37 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
Subject: Re: [art] Artart last call review of draft-ietf-core-coap-tcp-tls-07
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <5E5238DC-B835-4BDF-B50D-8D594A46C4D4@tzi.org>
Date: Wed, 10 May 2017 07:30:35 +1000
Cc: art@ietf.org, draft-ietf-core-coap-tcp-tls.all@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org, core@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <767F913A-586B-42A2-B021-F9AC5C478702@mnot.net>
References: <149179722452.3118.982908107963516290@ietfa.amsl.com> <5E5238DC-B835-4BDF-B50D-8D594A46C4D4@tzi.org>
To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/y2XCwbfI-mbh-KqSUyYTqQ6DmRw>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Tue, 09 May 2017 21:30:48 -0000

> On 10 Apr 2017, at 7:46 pm, Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> wrote:
> 
>> Section 7.4 shows how to convert a "coap+ws://" URI into a "wss://"
>> URI, using a well-known URI in the "wss" scheme. However, "wss" is not
>> defined to use well-known URIs, so this is an invalid use. 
> 
> This incorrect use of RFC 5785 is indeed embarrassing.  More about that later.

To close this loop -- the change in -08 isn't sufficiently prominent IME; while the general nature of the change is listed in the Abstract, the actual normative text is very hard to find. Given that this is a pretty fundamental change in the operation of a URI scheme, I'd think it at least deserves its own section, if not a separate document.

Cheers,

--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email