Re: [Uri-review] Response to 'leaprofrogans' scheme proposal

Benjamin PHISTER <benjamin.phister@op3ft.org> Sun, 28 October 2018 12:07 UTC

Return-Path: <benjamin.phister@op3ft.org>
X-Original-To: uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DFF7128CE4 for <uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 28 Oct 2018 05:07:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.277
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.277 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=0.723, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=op3ft.org
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 2u2KKidrexyN for <uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 28 Oct 2018 05:07:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bongo.maple.relay.mailchannels.net (bongo.maple.relay.mailchannels.net [23.83.214.21]) (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 5BBE3128CFD for <uri-review@ietf.org>; Sun, 28 Oct 2018 05:07:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Sender-Id: 5ei546bipu|env-sender|benjamin.phister@op3ft.org
Received: from relay.mailchannels.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CB25500CB5 for <uri-review@ietf.org>; Sun, 28 Oct 2018 12:07:23 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail0.stg-interactive.net (unknown [100.96.30.62]) (Authenticated sender: 5ei546bipu) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id A09A6500A8B for <uri-review@ietf.org>; Sun, 28 Oct 2018 12:07:22 +0000 (UTC)
X-Sender-Id: 5ei546bipu|env-sender|benjamin.phister@op3ft.org
Received: from mail0.stg-interactive.net (mx1.fr.stgi.io [164.132.65.8]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384) by 0.0.0.0:2500 (trex/5.16.2); Sun, 28 Oct 2018 12:07:23 +0000
X-MC-Relay: Neutral
X-MailChannels-SenderId: 5ei546bipu|env-sender|benjamin.phister@op3ft.org
X-MailChannels-Auth-Id: 5ei546bipu
X-Language-Blushing: 1a6225855b11e13f_1540728443341_194031528
X-MC-Loop-Signature: 1540728443340:3188828502
X-MC-Ingress-Time: 1540728443339
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=op3ft.org; s=mail; t=1540728439; bh=AbIcquHRBUdv2xvP1bOGFrmk+NsiKQjL9xFZBWgL4b8=; h=Subject:References:From:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To; b=h/GmbMsMaQ6/m5T0Njkq7lRH7vVDRrkpP40KV3+YRHxk9QOAzYSShVIFl4w15VtBz ZRbrmgvFlNlrut6ofhTHC2bNgDSQDQp5szQWVYVaXzbiQAO7XuCG9dndGRXJPGl+XB QmcVc0lMO/17qAjYpTtS5RnCqCkZGry+V8t2tnUc=
References: <5BB898EA.8020607@ninebynine.org> <4b2eabfe-77a0-99f5-5519-b95d2db73f0c@op3ft.org> <57d58f91-e42d-0c53-8f44-05f0e9bee5df@op3ft.org>
From: Benjamin PHISTER <benjamin.phister@op3ft.org>
To: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
Cc: "uri-review@ietf.org" <uri-review@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <c554db8b-ac56-5de2-12df-9a69bc7247f4@op3ft.org>
Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2018 13:07:19 +0100
User-Agent: Evolution 2.22.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <57d58f91-e42d-0c53-8f44-05f0e9bee5df@op3ft.org>
Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-DSPAM-Result: Innocent
X-DSPAM-Processed: Sun Oct 28 13:07:20 2018
X-DSPAM-Confidence: 0.9899
X-DSPAM-Probability: 0.0000
X-DSPAM-Signature: 6735,5bd5a67836362393589967
X-DSPAM-Factors: 27, Ted+#+#+ietf, 0.01000, Ted+#+#+ietf, 0.01000, list+#+#+ietf, 0.01000, list+#+#+ietf, 0.01000, uri+review, 0.01000, uri+review, 0.01000, what+the, 0.01000, https+#+frogans, 0.01000, 6+#+Mozart, 0.01000, 6+#+Mozart, 0.01000, Received*Postfix+with, 0.01000, Received*with+#+id, 0.01000, To+#+Hardie, 0.01000, to+#+the, 0.01000, to+#+the, 0.01000, Received*phister-crypt-laptop.orga.loc+100.64.201.15, 0.01000, Received*Authenticated+sender, 0.01000, Ted+#+#+#+gmail, 0.01000, Ted+#+#+#+gmail, 0.01000, the+#+#+URI, 0.01000, benjamin+#+#+org, 0.01000, benjamin+#+#+org, 0.01000, ted+#+#+com, 0.01000, ted+#+#+com, 0.01000, DKIM-Signature*simple+d, 0.01000, org+#+review, 0.01000, org+#+review, 0.01000
X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV using ClamSMTP
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/uri-review/6HhOF9xkt5GUXxxvihYncXXK5eE>
Subject: Re: [Uri-review] Response to 'leaprofrogans' scheme proposal
X-BeenThere: uri-review@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proposed URI Schemes <uri-review.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/uri-review>, <mailto:uri-review-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/uri-review/>
List-Post: <mailto:uri-review@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:uri-review-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review>, <mailto:uri-review-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2018 12:07:29 -0000

Hi Graham,

Sorry for the late answer. I had some problems posting on the mailing list -- a spam filter got in the way.

Please find below (inline) our feedback on your comments and suggestions.

Thanks again,

Ben Phister


From: Benjamin PHISTER <benjamin.phister@op3ft.org>;
Subject: [Uri-review] Response to 'leaprofrogans' scheme proposal
Date: Sunday, Oct 7, 2018 1:15 PM CEST
To: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>;
Cc: uri-review@ietf.org <uri-review@ietf.org>;

Hi Graham.

Thanks for your comments and suggestions. We will respond soon.

Regards,
Ben Phister

From: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>;
Subject: [Uri-review] Response to 'leaprofrogans' scheme proposal (was: Wi-Fi Alliance permanent scheme registration -review request)
Date: Saturday, Oct 6, 2018 1:13 PM CEST
To: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>;, Gaurav Jain <gjain@wi-fi.org>;, Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>;
Cc: uri-review@ietf.org <uri-review@ietf.org>;

Hi all,

Alexey just pointed out I confused two different proposals.

My previous message is actually a response to 
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/uri-review/1NP3Q5xB6JZt6nNxFLa3g7MAnGs" rel="nofollow">https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/uri-review/1NP3Q5xB6JZt6nNxFLa3g7MAnGs, 
though triggered by Larry's comment about encoding.

Sorry for the noise.

(Though maybe there's a pattern hiding in the confusion?)

#g
--


On 06/10/2018 10:37, Graham Klyne wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Larry's comment raised a flag for me, so I took a look at the referenced I-D [1]
> (per https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/uri-review/1NP3Q5xB6JZt6nNxFLa3g7MAnGs" rel="nofollow">https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/uri-review/1NP3Q5xB6JZt6nNxFLa3g7MAnGs).
>
> [1]
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-op3ft-leaptofrogans-uri-scheme/?include_text=1" rel="nofollow">https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-op3ft-leaptofrogans-uri-scheme/?include_text=1
>
>
> A touchstone I have in situations like this is to ask the question "what do
> instances of this URI scheme identify?", and in this case I think it's clear
> enough that they identify a "frogans site" (whatever that may be).  So far, so
> good.
>
>
> However, reading the draft, I have other concerns:
>
>
> 1. Section 1: it's not at all clear what FrogAns can achieve that is not
> achievable using WWW and appropriate media types.  (Which somewhat supports
> Larry's point.)  There is plenty of "visual rather than text-based
> communication" that can be and is implemented using WWW.  I don't see this as a
> blocker, but it maybe suggests the documentation could be more helpful.
To keep the draft focused on the 'leaptofrogans' URI scheme, we didn't want to include a detailed discussion of the similarities and differences between Frogans sites and Web sites. However, we included in the draft a reference to Section 1.4 "Frogans sites and Web sites" of the technical specification of the Frogans Slide Description Language [FSDL] because such a discussion is available there.
>
>
> 2. Section 2, according to the registration template, is the goto reference for
> scheme semantics.  But looking at this, I'm not seeing much description of
> semantics.
>
> I don't know what the first paragraph of section 2 is actually intended to mean.
> I can't recognize the characterization of URI usage offered here.
>
> The second paragraph talks about referencing the Web from frogans sites, which
> doesn't seem to need a new URI scheme.
>
> The third paragraph talks about referencing frogans sites from the Web, which I
> assume is the intended use of this scheme.  The goals suggested here appear to
> assume very broad deployment of the frogans scheme implementation, which is not
> something I think is likely to happen (especially since the technology, or at
> least its name, appears to be quite proprietary).  For ease of deployment(at
> scale), I think Larry's point about using a MIME type is particularly relevant.
Actually, we already explored the use of a MIME type as a means to include on a Web page a link enabling end users to launch Frogans Player on a given Frogans site. In 2006, the 'vnd.frogans.ltf' media type was registered with IANA (https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/application/vnd.frogans.ltf" rel="nofollow">https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/application/vnd.frogans.ltf), implemented in Frogans Player, and tested. But finally, the use of a media type was rejected by the OP3FT for the following main reasons:
- For any such link included on a Web page, the author had to create and host a .ltf file on the Web server hosting that Web page, which was cumbersome. Furthermore, prior to creating such links, the author had to ask the server administrator to associate the .ltf files with the 'vnd.frogans.ltf' media type on the server.
- Alternatively, the author could create a link via a redirection service (leaptofrogans.net). That service generated a .ltf file on the fly while associating it with the 'vnd.frogans.ltf' media type. But that alternative raised privacy concerns, and potentially added latency for end users.
- On the Web browser side, especially on mobile devices which have become the principal means for end users to access the Internet, it appeared that using a media type from a Web page to launch another application did not work well across device operating systems.
>   Also, RFC7595 points out the potential high cost of deploying new URI schemes
> [2].
>
> [2] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7595#section-3.1" rel="nofollow">https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7595#section-3.1
>
> (I personally think that schemes like "mailto:" set a poor precedent for URI
> scheme use, as they obscure the role of URIs as identifiers and locators of
> resources in the Web.  But that horse being long bolted doesn't mean we can't
> try to do better.)
>
>
> frogans is described as having a "slide description language" format (FSDL)..
> (FSDL even appears to include a format for sending requests to servers.) Is
> there any reason that FSDL cannot be accessed over the web using HTTP, and
> interpreted/dispatched to a frogans player?  This doesn't mean that HTTP has be
> be used by frogans native applications, but IMO would allow frogans to integrate
> more easily into non-frogans environments by exploiting existing protocols.
> E.g., it could allow things like sending FSDL in email and having the recipient
> client dispatch to a frogans player.
Since version 3.0 of the Frogans Slide Description Language (FSDL), as stated in Section 1.2 "Purpose" of its technical specification, FSDL works on top of Uniform Content Server Request (UCSR), a new framework designed and developed by the OP3FT to make the Frogans technology independent from data-transport protocols.

The UCSR framework provides a client application with an abstraction layer for uniformly requesting and receiving data from a content server, while ensuring a predetermined security level.

Note that UCSR does not propose new networking protocols. It utilizes existing protocols widely used on the  Internet such as IP, DNS, TCP, TLS, and HTTP.

For more information on UCSR (and also to get an overall understanding of the Frogans technology), see Frogans Technology Overview on the official Web site of the Frogans technology (https://www.frogans.org/en/resources/overview/access.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.frogans.org/en/resources/overview/access.html).

>
> It may well be that there is a good case for having a new URI scheme for
> frogans, but I feel the draft doesn't really explain it.  Understanding why
> HTTP+media type doesn't work just as well for the intended use would helpme to
> understand what that case could be.
>
> #g
> --
>
>
> On 06/10/2018 03:30, Larry Masinter wrote:
>> I think they might want to reconsider whether they need a URI scheme at all,
>> rather than a MIME type.
>> When you have a complex but extensible data structure, it’s more resilient.
The 'leaptofrogans' URI scheme doesn't have a complex or extensible data structure. It just contains a Frogans address (e.g. frogans*HelloWorld) which identifies a Frogans site.
>> And if you have
>> Situations where you really need to serialize as a URI, you can always do it
>> with a data: URI.
>>
>> Larry
>> --
>> http://LarryMasinter.net" rel="nofollow">http://LarryMasinter.net
>>
>> From: Gaurav Jain
>> Sent: Friday, October 5, 2018 3:24 PM
>> To: Ted Hardie
>> Cc: uri-review@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [Uri-review] Wi-Fi Alliance permanent scheme registration -review
>> request
>>
>> Thank you Ted for your helpful suggestions. Wi-Fi Alliance discussed this
>> feedback and think the second of your suggestions on how to have an extensible
>> Bootstrapping Information URI is preferable. We would therefore like to
>> additionally have a separate registry of tokens, initially populated by C, M,
>> I, and K with definitions taken from the description we have provided. As a
>> condition of adding to that registry may we suggest 'Expert Review' as a
>> registration procedure for new tokens with myself, Gaurav Jain
>> <gjain@wi-fi.org>; as the designated expert. Alternate registration procedures
>> are possible if 'Expert Review' is not appropriate in your estimation.
>>
>> Thanks and regards,
>>
>> Gaurav Jain
>> Senior Manager, Program Technology
>> +1-408-400-7158 Office
>> +1-408-674-1441 Mobile
>>
>> Wi-Fi Alliance
>> http://www.wi-fi.org" rel="nofollow">www.wi-fi.org
>> http://twitter.com/wifialliance" rel="nofollow">http://twitter.com/wifialliance
>> http://www.facebook.com/wificertified" rel="nofollow">www.facebook.com/wificertified
>>
>> Visit our blog, The Beacon, for Wi-Fi industry topics and trends
>>
>> From: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>;
>> Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2018 7:45 AM
>> To: Gaurav Jain <gjain@wi-fi.org>;
>> Cc: uri-review@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [Uri-review] Wi-Fi Alliance permanent scheme registration -
>> review request
>>
>> Hi Guarav,
>>
>> Thanks for your message. Poking at the spec, the syntax of the dpp scheme
>> appears to be given as:
>> "
>> dpp-qr = “DPP:” [channel-list “;”] [mac “;”] [information “;”] public-key “;;”
>> pkex-bootstrap-info = [information]
>> channel-list = “C:” class-and-channels *(“,” class-and-channels)
>> class-and-channels = class “/” channel *(“,” channel)
>> class = 1*3DIGIT
>> channel = 1*3DIGIT
>> mac = “M:” 6hex-octet ; MAC address
>> hex-octet = 2HEXDIG
>> information = “I:” *(%x20-3A / %x3C-7E) ; semicolon not allowed
>> public-key = “K:” *PKCHAR ; DER of ASN.1 SubjectPublicKeyInfo encoded in
>> “base64” as per [14]
>> PKCHAR = ALPHA / DIGIT / %x2b / %x2f / %x3d
>>
>> The channel-list ABNF rule allows a list of IEEE 802.11 global operatingclass
>> and channel (Annex E of [2]) value pairs to
>> be specified. The MAC ABNF rule expresses the MAC address as a string ofsix
>> hex-octets. The information ABNF rule
>> allows freeform information to accompany the public key.
>> The bootstrapping information may be extended in future updates of the
>> technical specification. Devices parsing this
>> information should ignore unknown semicolon separated components in the dpp-qr
>> and pkex-bootstrap-info instantiations
>> to be forward compatible with such extensions."
>>
>> The last paragraph indicates that this is subject to later extension, but the
>> syntax does not appear to be versioned and there does not appear to be any
>> requirement for the placement of future extensions.  My experience is that
>> this could well result in later interoperability problems.
>>
>> There seem to be a couple of ways to make that work, if you do not anticipate
>> registering dpp2 and so on.  One would be to include later extensions within
>> the current free-form Information field, declaring a new delimiter,whichwould
>> be understood by the later version.  Reserving the delimiter now would be
>> useful, if that is your choice.  Another would be to generalize this slightly
>> so that the syntax of the scheme is simply (scheme name) ":" followed bya
>> series of token:*PKCHAR pairs.  You can then have a separately updated
>> registry of the tokens, which would have C, M, I, K,  present and which would
>> be matched in your spec to the limitations.  As you introduce new tokens, you
>> can update the registry.  If you go that path, I would suggest splittingclass
>> and channel so that they are independent tokens, but this is a stylistic
>> suggestion only.
>>
>> My personal views only,
>>
>> regards,
>>
>> Ted Hardie
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 1:14 PM, Gaurav Jain <gjain@wi-fi.org>; wrote:
>> Dear IETF URI review committee,
>>
>> Wi-Fi Alliance would like to submit a scheme registration request for your
>> review and consideration. Attached with this email you should find the following:
>> 1. Scheme registration request standalone document
>> 2. Latest published Wi-Fi Alliance technical specification for Device
>> Provisioning Protocol
>> (https://www.wi-fi.org/file/device-provisioning-protocol-specification-v10" rel="nofollow">https://www.wi-fi.org/file/device-provisioning-protocol-specification-v10)
>> covering the details of the protocol, URI definition, syntax, URI formatand
>> associated information
>>
>> Since the registration request is for a ‘permanent’ registration, Wi-Fi
>> Alliance has reviewed the requirements listed in section 3 (Requirementsfor
>> Permanent Scheme Definitions) of RFC 7595 and have found that this
>> registration request satisfies the listed requirements. As a next step, we
>> request you to review this scheme registration request and provide your
>> comments to us by Oct-15 2018.
>>
>> Thanks and regards,
>>
>> Gaurav Jain
>> Senior Manager, Program Technology
>> +1-408-400-7158 Office
>> +1-408-674-1441 Mobile
>>
>> Wi-Fi Alliance
>> http://www.wi-fi.org" rel="nofollow">www.wi-fi.org
>> http://twitter.com/wifialliance" rel="nofollow">http://twitter.com/wifialliance
>> http://www.facebook.com/wificertified" rel="nofollow">www.facebook.com/wificertified
>>
>> Visit our blog, The Beacon, for Wi-Fi industry topics and trends
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Uri-review mailing list
>> Uri-review@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review" rel="nofollow">https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Uri-review mailing list
>> Uri-review@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review" rel="nofollow">https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Uri-review mailing list
> Uri-review@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review" rel="nofollow">https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review
>

_______________________________________________
Uri-review mailing list
Uri-review@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review" rel="nofollow">https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review


-- 
Benjamin Phister
Head of Technical Specifications
benjamin.phister@op3ft.org

OP3FT
6 square Mozart
75016 Paris - France
Tel: +33 1 5392 0040
https://www.op3ft.org/" rel="nofollow">https://www.op3ft.org/
frogans*op3ft

-- 
Benjamin Phister
Head of Technical Specifications
benjamin.phister@op3ft.org

OP3FT
6 square Mozart
75016 Paris - France
Tel: +33 1 5392 0040
https://www.op3ft.org/" rel="nofollow">https://www.op3ft.org/
frogans*op3ft