Re: [Uri-review] PKCS#11 URI registration request review

Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com> Mon, 11 February 2013 17:14 UTC

Return-Path: <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
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 74CA721F88D6 for <uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Feb 2013 09:14:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.533
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.533 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.067, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Racj4xM4nSeA for <uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Feb 2013 09:14:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ie0-x22c.google.com (mail-ie0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::22c]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9192421F88CB for <uri-review@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Feb 2013 09:14:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ie0-f172.google.com with SMTP id c10so7996297ieb.3 for <uri-review@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Feb 2013 09:14:50 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=3bvr9QX1d7yHTYEHovwHdDOiAkfDVItbPqakixXRVOo=; b=wiihGWzELU3iLVYKJ3yfLtBDU7NOSLQs/FBtSNnSrrW8H5pCtZ54JB0Ih2S8q8lU4b PE1+bfdrCmQLVenAfB8Jg4d2Bonm7JZv7TsrK1PG3dWk/G90JVkHYUW2e1rFJqRvcvT1 KZMuQSccDswkwN2qCTVenJhT2m8zwm7ITMjpH8aq0/YFo53N4zKZHPs781RdGdQ1Mdv9 gsMGGeU8RFaPBl6PlXDABIWCUj0bVIafAAxva9M9hyIHAZgdoelJDfNSbP6xxoJsW47Y umpAI9XjnbXb+Ylxe/r4QCOkYeUNXk5O5TLhTBYdgy+mi0MrDaTZ2BOcATgXAVCz/RNr 97SQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.42.19.197 with SMTP id d5mr18184001icb.29.1360602890091; Mon, 11 Feb 2013 09:14:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.43.135.202 with HTTP; Mon, 11 Feb 2013 09:14:50 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.GSO.2.00.1302081722560.7401@rejewski>
References: <alpine.GSO.2.00.1301261430001.28908@rejewski> <alpine.GSO.2.00.1302081722560.7401@rejewski>
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 09:14:50 -0800
Message-ID: <CA+9kkMB2W9zZBuWvZmPE0aNf6NX_fbG6Fzx0R71QDQB9YNPamA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
To: Jan Pechanec <jan.pechanec@oracle.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Cc: Darren.Moffat@oracle.com, uri-review@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Uri-review] PKCS#11 URI registration request review
X-BeenThere: uri-review@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 17:14:51 -0000

Hi Jan,

Some comments on a quick review:

In the examples you use newlines to make things more readable, and I
think that's
reasonable, but your justification says:

   Note that in some of the following examples,
   newlines and spaces were inserted for better readability which is
   allowed by [RFC3986].

I think that's a bit confusing.  If I understand you, what you mean to
say is that the
3986 allows you to use newlines in example text, not that it allows you to use
newlines and spaces "for better readability" in the actual URI.  Some re-wording
may be in order.

I also believe you may wish to make explicit statements about where on the
3986 ladder of comparison you intend for these attribute-value pairs
to fall.  As
it stands, some of the text about Library version indicates that you expect a
semantic comparison, but it is usual in cryptographic contexts to require
something that has much less wiggle room.   Explicit text on this would help
the reader understand what it is expected

regards,

Ted Hardie

On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 5:28 PM, Jan Pechanec <jan.pechanec@oracle.com>; wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Jan 2013, Jan Pechanec wrote:
>
>         hi, the section 5.2 of RFC 4395 notes "Allow a reasonable time
> for discussion and comments. Four weeks is reasonable for a permanent
> registration requests."
>
>         I will wait for two more weeks if there is any feedback (which
> would be greatly appreciated) to make it 4 weeks in total, and if there
> is none I will continue with the next step, which is the submission to
> iana@iana.org.
>
>         regards, Jan.
>
>>       hello,
>>
>>       in accordance with section "5.2. Registration Procedures" of RFC
>>4395 "Guidelines and Registration Procedures for New URI Schemes", I
>>respectfully request a review for our planned permanent registration
>>request of the PKCS#11 URI as specified in the following I-D:
>>
>>       http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-pechanec-pkcs11uri-08
>>
>>       the registration template is attached.
>>
>>       best regards, Jan Pechanec
>>
>>
>
> --
> Jan Pechanec
> http://blogs.oracle.com/janp
> _______________________________________________
> Uri-review mailing list
> Uri-review@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review