[Trans] Fwd: [art] Call for Consensus: Re: On BCP 190

Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@gmail.com> Tue, 20 August 2019 07:01 UTC

Return-Path: <melinda.shore@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: trans@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: trans@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 117A4120887 for <trans@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Aug 2019 00:01:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 vlcBi5FIWSB9 for <trans@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Aug 2019 00:00:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf1-x42c.google.com (mail-pf1-x42c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::42c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AAEFB12087A for <trans@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Aug 2019 00:00:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf1-x42c.google.com with SMTP id b24so2805730pfp.1 for <trans@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Aug 2019 00:00:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:references:to:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=IjI6NMK/bYVq6A2sy5erSRHeylmBoZaoR9AscXMMzxU=; b=JMunHQGLjM7Lxiu4VklmeepUhkdmV82OjJYvF+SXzQdtshnzfJxHun3Uslz9dY0hzF /qp0Whqps+3qYixQo0gRNG/Dq8GZM7QNASAWy6it1xntMqb4XBIvDtCH4hSblvegk2ud nZ3j2gRTwykYN9q5fm7IFe78J8jl8bhtN0lbC5t6mIURYTNvhcBSr2O9lzlbs0E40Jgp mP5aZk7vM2UA10zzb8Sr6cPKo5AALyJwSP6DUVQe2U5aYn26aPKBXTYQ/9ZmXzem9fWI xHo89hbIpk6WC3qASc4IRN+k/y13H46kysNMWsv1WPBseHgER7QRAJZxD4l9fD/IIC4f jz8w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:references:to:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=IjI6NMK/bYVq6A2sy5erSRHeylmBoZaoR9AscXMMzxU=; b=QCIkL8L1PsjK9ZzzYdrCfvpB5In5FdGZrKYNpW8574rxgtbwtkHyA+c2BY8JI6s9Yx 0k1+N1HPQUbeQekY8qfVqxVYRnrfFVdECeu9EuQGdGJ/9yb9LUIfXX9ZgvgFIXqntx2Z Zzhups1jRIFf+kYk5faFHi+YLDMEwwGvD8AsFpVSEr+gsgfZOtbTDdL6bIOwP+QTiDG9 eoqdTfBZFSQTb7iFVwX1EaoKCqR9zrEh/I0hV3EjyV1FfCKQ1ZT6RyzgCL9QHIybSLoW bTEaYm9Tx3hVHH2pnYT1mAwt7SUDB1wuGaWP+cTE9xUC0HzQXEsUe4vlwRxHBfzKl3KW Sqkw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWTY/tpwAau0msaR2l2M/QIA+54yD4xjgK62cDh/L3lCroS2atX HIForwnGH183fLM6guwO/pND7t0V
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyXR4G8zDO5ohQRyytXR5+D4sQwEX7APOxbODDCQGBof9q+BMTEMPg2n9P6su8uwDRpnhX9vw==
X-Received: by 2002:a65:458d:: with SMTP id o13mr22977520pgq.34.1566284456554; Tue, 20 Aug 2019 00:00:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aspen.local (63-140-73-7-rb1.jnu.dsl.dynamic.acsalaska.net. [63.140.73.7]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id f72sm15396680pjg.10.2019.08.20.00.00.55 for <trans@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 20 Aug 2019 00:00:55 -0700 (PDT)
References: <3000e948-14e6-80d2-e8e6-766d309c361c@nostrum.com>
To: "trans@ietf.org" <trans@ietf.org>
From: Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@gmail.com>
X-Forwarded-Message-Id: <3000e948-14e6-80d2-e8e6-766d309c361c@nostrum.com>
Message-ID: <8d7a03db-664b-9370-eb15-ea2275c6a140@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2019 23:00:53 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <3000e948-14e6-80d2-e8e6-766d309c361c@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/trans/0tVzjlTKIe-3cbFProZRBC8bXwM>
Subject: [Trans] Fwd: [art] Call for Consensus: Re: On BCP 190
X-BeenThere: trans@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Public Notary Transparency working group discussion list <trans.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/trans>, <mailto:trans-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/trans/>
List-Post: <mailto:trans@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:trans-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans>, <mailto:trans-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2019 07:01:00 -0000

Hi, all:  I'm still digging out from having been away
for several weeks, plus fires to put out at $dayjob, but
I'd like to call your attention to a call for consensus
on the art (application area) mailing list on BCP 190.
The original discussion was driven by Adam's DISCUSS on
6962-bis, and interested parties really ought to weigh
in on this.

Melinda


-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: [art] Call for Consensus: Re:  On BCP 190
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2019 15:15:14 -0500
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Jacob Hoffman-Andrews
<jsha@letsencrypt.org>
CC: ART Area <art@ietf.org>, Devon O'Brien <devon.obrien@gmail.com>

For the purposes of clearing my discuss, I intend to read the responses
to Mark's message below as a reflection of consensus from the community.
If you have thoughts on the topic, please weigh in on the ART-area
mailing list no later than Friday, August 16th.

People who have participated in the discussion in TRANS are very much
welcome to re-express their opinions in this thread. I'm also hoping
that we get some input from other participants -- even if it's something
as simple as "this sounds good to me" -- to make sure all relevant
perspectives are taken into account.

Thanks!

/a

On 8/2/19 1:55 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> It sounds like you (collectively) want an exception in BCP190 still, correct?
>
> If so, I think we just need to craft some language about that for inclusion in the spec; I'd imagine it need only be a sentence or two about it. Then the AD(s) need to convince themselves that it reflects consensus.
>
> The underlying issue is the text in 2.3 of BCP190; I think the emerging consensus is that it's too strict, in that it can be read to preclude using a prefix approach with a MUST NOT, when in fact the potential harm to other applications / the Web overall is pretty small.
>
> Does anyone disagree with that?
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>> On 31 Jul 2019, at 2:10 pm, Jacob Hoffman-Andrews <jsha@letsencrypt.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 11:26 PM Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org> wrote:
>> The use of / in the path of URLs was supposed to
>>
>> be restricted to hierarchical data, and yet CT doesn’t
>> do that.
>>
>> http://masinter.blogspot.com/2019/05/on-nature-of-hierarchical-urls.html
>>
>>
>> CT and all prefix-using APIs do that, with a single level hierarchy. The domain owner specifies a prefix, ending with a "/". All of the URLs that are part of the API follow that prefix - they are subordinate in the hierarchy.
>>
>> Coming back to the main point: What remains in order to find consensus on this issue?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Jacob
> --
> Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
>
> _______________________________________________
> art mailing list
> art@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/art


_______________________________________________
art mailing list
art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/art