Re: [Uri-review] Wi-Fi Alliance permanent scheme registration -review request

Larry Masinter <> Sat, 06 October 2018 02:30 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F48A130DDC for <>; Fri, 5 Oct 2018 19:30:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.399
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id e-GmBKv8tXq0 for <>; Fri, 5 Oct 2018 19:30:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::62e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 67533130DC3 for <>; Fri, 5 Oct 2018 19:30:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id p25-v6so7613435pli.11 for <>; Fri, 05 Oct 2018 19:30:20 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=message-id:sender:mime-version:to:cc:from:subject:date:importance :thread-topic:in-reply-to:references; bh=NIB2ESPuewJUVxUueTZBovu3zV/8ZqblhL2WjRNFhOw=; b=Bsfl9ZM2ZzMBNU8gu8CLU8HFilF+VR7ANLA1fmhc/h+gUlmwG+8nsTQwtJQGr9Vp7T bk6i31HcM/L44N8sXajE/i349MH6cZwLtZe79BGGZx2L8fz+CrNRRN80NIKTqDzPenPw sG/kGnQSEH8l+MQsfQdtViDVruMxYTdyzczdcIA5wbPxQOUM06X5uNWlR3HM4ijCjz0E epFDVDFQNaXpvUGDxYP7WFhSZIOn5XbYtdIwONERPCjvmjJ1ePOJ4+LUDKob4c4scUm2 3bbxmP8ucE5Jbqe1Wk/w8DIfoq5KnZppDbhW1s6iwtmBnqaL7HFeA4HBMXXtaNM6z3HU 0tyA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:sender:mime-version:to:cc:from :subject:date:importance:thread-topic:in-reply-to:references; bh=NIB2ESPuewJUVxUueTZBovu3zV/8ZqblhL2WjRNFhOw=; b=jLjsbCBOGnjB34o97r03oF6U3l/tn1R/eMDrd25PHTfL6608IQbWF//UgFUhFaE6VJ Q6xQLBpxuFCl77mzFoi1BUOIYITGelRvbVspsYDI4wa5m/z3S1iAITs09SVMSIgZuru7 tcFH+uOjGv429D5EqlMHhXDx8rsN5lVGm9lqQjqTGIJ01/TdJ60CtINLarxVmQeYYPUr v0Ocb3UD6+IFehv4VyRqHZ3hUoN55FQzl1ZvogvzrLJQCztTcz4Jmu2QCs0Aw2FBoCyD QAbqDc1BOdI/VPG1ogyv6f3HQ34YjIqpOFN9UKWVyCtlLDwQMksUXzZWCAKlKLkrmt+1 +Omw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ABuFfohUrupINLgf1ZAc1i2/vpHCAfgQKZy1M9zmg0bOVz1QATNgIyMA wELqcq2wV1UO7SiKA/6jniw=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACcGV614a5mrGjzEHZLdE0mFPA2hvszKF24fnT3Cyzw03TXzpmI3kuysUY8zlYO/E8Ll90bTT6bQQQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:680e:: with SMTP id h14-v6mr14202377plk.177.1538793019763; Fri, 05 Oct 2018 19:30:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:::ffff: ( []) by with ESMTPSA id o2-v6sm21360051pfj.57.2018. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 05 Oct 2018 19:30:18 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <>
Sender: Larry Masinter <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Gaurav Jain <>, Ted Hardie <>
Cc: "" <>
From: Larry Masinter <>
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2018 19:30:19 -0700
Importance: normal
X-Priority: 3
Thread-Topic: [Uri-review] Wi-Fi Alliance permanent scheme registration -review request
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_6645FFF0-CEE4-4388-B0D8-7FFD42F785E3_"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Uri-review] Wi-Fi Alliance permanent scheme registration -review request
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proposed URI Schemes <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2018 02:30:23 -0000

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. And if you have
Situations where you really need to serialize as a URI, you can always do it with a data: URI.


From: Gaurav Jain
Sent: Friday, October 5, 2018 3:24 PM
To: Ted Hardie
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 <> 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

Visit our blog, The Beacon, for Wi-Fi industry topics and trends

From: Ted Hardie <> 
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2018 7:45 AM
To: Gaurav Jain <>
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 operating class and channel (Annex E of [2]) value pairs to
be specified. The MAC ABNF rule expresses the MAC address as a string of six 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,which would 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 by a 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 splitting class and channel so that they are independent tokens, but this is a stylistic suggestion only. 

My personal views only,


Ted Hardie

On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 1:14 PM, Gaurav Jain <> 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 ( covering the details of the protocol, URI definition, syntax, URI format and associated information
Since the registration request is for a ‘permanent’ registration, Wi-Fi Alliance has reviewed the requirements listed in section 3 (Requirements for 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
Visit our blog, The Beacon, for Wi-Fi industry topics and trends

Uri-review mailing list