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

Jan Pechanec <jan.pechanec@oracle.com> Wed, 13 February 2013 08:00 UTC

Return-Path: <jan.pechanec@oracle.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 0C2D021F8925 for <uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 00:00:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 28Y+5QNLTKAw for <uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 00:00:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from userp1040.oracle.com (userp1040.oracle.com [156.151.31.81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3239F21F8922 for <uri-review@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 00:00:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ucsinet21.oracle.com (ucsinet21.oracle.com [156.151.31.93]) by userp1040.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1) with ESMTP id r1D80k5Y003480 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 13 Feb 2013 08:00:46 GMT
Received: from acsmt357.oracle.com (acsmt357.oracle.com [141.146.40.157]) by ucsinet21.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r1D80jdZ009984 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 13 Feb 2013 08:00:45 GMT
Received: from abhmt109.oracle.com (abhmt109.oracle.com [141.146.116.61]) by acsmt357.oracle.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id r1D80j3s016748; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 02:00:45 -0600
Received: from rejewski.us.oracle.com (/10.132.148.23) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 00:00:44 -0800
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 00:01:52 -0800 (PST)
From: Jan Pechanec <jan.pechanec@oracle.com>
X-X-Sender: jpechane@rejewski
To: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+9kkMB2W9zZBuWvZmPE0aNf6NX_fbG6Fzx0R71QDQB9YNPamA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.GSO.2.00.1302122349180.14210@rejewski>
References: <alpine.GSO.2.00.1301261430001.28908@rejewski> <alpine.GSO.2.00.1302081722560.7401@rejewski> <CA+9kkMB2W9zZBuWvZmPE0aNf6NX_fbG6Fzx0R71QDQB9YNPamA@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (GSO 1167 2008-08-23)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Source-IP: ucsinet21.oracle.com [156.151.31.93]
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: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 08:00:49 -0000

On Mon, 11 Feb 2013, Ted Hardie wrote:

>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.

	hi Ted, I agree it is confusing, thanks for bringing it up. I'd 
like to change it to:

   This section contains some examples of how PKCS#11 token objects,
   PKCS#11 tokens, and PKCS#11 libraries can be identified using the
   PKCS#11 URI scheme.  Note that in some of the following examples,
   newlines and spaces were inserted for better readability.  As
   specified in Appendix C of [RFC3986], whitespace should be ignored
   when extracting the URI.  Also note that all spaces as part of the
   URI are percent-encoded, as specified in Appendix A of [RFC3986].

>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

	it sounds very reasonable and I'd like to add a new paragraph at 
the end of Section 3:

   As ordering of attributes in the PKCS#11 URI is not significant,
   comparison of URIs should be performed on a per-attribute basis after
   the URI itself is normalized as explained in Section 6 of [RFC3986].
   Caution should excercised when comparing the "id" attributes as their
   values may not be fully percent-encoded.  Library version ".N" should
   be interpreted as "0" for the major and "N" for the minor version of
   the library.  Library version "M" should be interpreted as "M" for
   the major and "0" for the minor version of the library.


	does it look OK to you?

	thanks a lot for your feedback.

	regards, Jan.

>
>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
>

-- 
Jan Pechanec <jan.pechanec@oracle.com>;