Re: [OPSAWG] Last Call Review of draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-acceptable-urls-10

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

Christian, I don't know if I am understanding your shotgun parser comment
right.  My understanding is that I have unwittingly invoked one via my
informal description how URLs should be matched, and that this is something
to avoid.

I have written the following diff:

https://github.com/IETF-OPSAWG-WG/draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-acceptable-urls/pull/3/files#diff-7aca3461cf4d4087c17882e209f0b93f8c2b26fafa0d9a985555b097db3ea3ceR266-R272

which essentially says:
      Section 3.3 of {{RFC3986}} explains how the different parts of the URL are
      described.
      As explained in that section, a _path_ component consists of a series of
      _segment_ seperated by slash ("/") characters.
      The new URL is considered acceptable if it contains the same series of
      segments in its path, excepting that the last segment may be different.

I have further created headings for "Small Changes to MUD URL" and "Big Changes
to MUD URL" to explain the two mechanisms.  I hadn't really thought of it as
two mechanisms, but it's a good observation.

I'm not sure if this rewrite is what you had in mind.
I struggled with this for a few days now thinking that you were asking for
something much more formal, but finally came to this short description.
Does it work for you?

As for your comments about signature verification, I have made some small
changes at:

https://github.com/IETF-OPSAWG-WG/draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-acceptable-urls/pull/4/files

I hope to hear from you soonish if you are happy or unhappy with these
changes, and I'll post a new version on Friday March 1.

--
]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        |    IoT architect   [
]     [e-mail]  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [