Re: [precis] I-D Action: draft-ietf-precis-7564bis-09.txt

[Peter Saint-Andre <[e-mail]>]

On 9/17/17 1:13 PM, Sam Whited wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 14, 2017, at 21:04, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> What needs fixing? We added explanatory text about idempotence, and
>> there will also be an example of such in the RFC version.
> 
> That is not enough. Someone writing a PRECIS implementation *might* see
> that. Someone actually using the PRECIS implementation (eg. the author
> of an XMPP Client, Spotify, etc.) will most likely not see that. If
> they're lucky, the text will have been copied over into the
> implementations documentation. That's a lot of "if's".

Why would an application need to care about this? This is an internal
implementation detail of a PRECIS library/API, and IMHO it would be
irresponsible of the library/API author to offer an option for
application developers to select how many times to apply the rules.

>> Please note that these documents are now in AUTH48 (very final edits
>> before publication). So speak now or forever hold your peace!
> 
> I brought this up earlier as well. I wanted to bring it up again because
> the Nickname profile is getting so close to being published again with
> something that I think is possibly a security concern and that needs to
> be fixed since we won't have this opportunity again.

Sam, I am going to reiterate that we are EXTREMELY close to publication
of this document - it could have happened on, say, Thursday morning
right before you posted to the list about this. Please please please
either propose very specific text or point to an earlier email message
where you did so, because personally I have forgotten if you already did
that and my recollection from the previous discussion was that you did
not raise objections to the compromise text that Bill Fisher and I
agreed on. If your proposal is that we make significant changes to the
document at this time, then the Working Group chair or Area Director
will likely have to suggest a path forward, because your feedback is
coming so very late in the process.

Peter