IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Uri-review] Re: draft-grimminck-safe-ioc-sharing

Eric Burger <eburger@standardstrack.com> Tue, 26 May 2026 13:12 UTC

Return-Path: <eburger@standardstrack.com>
X-Original-To: uri-review@mail2.ietf.org
Delivered-To: uri-review@mail2.ietf.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3F7DF536C9A; Tue, 26 May 2026 06:12:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1779801152; bh=6uMi94wQYj1QuemoJpiyfbvL9reeGRPahvD4r9wxlOY=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=UAsGpFD4TKIg7ujJD6bJe/0THIAp0xRVwXnxFh8lduoIUgmUpXW905PflxS1Q7NKU FcIhvqCMoVW2tERKgElwbdsNhYIVEgqyNCyd4EYm54k9uIXp6LLaypLUT0Qm+XEo2r PnL61c8HRFSuHDMo2IHFNKncelwoYR9HTbvSSAj4=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.085
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.085 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: mail2.ietf.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=standardstrack.com
Received: from mail2.ietf.org ([166.84.6.31]) by localhost (mail2.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6DzyG85eecvu; Tue, 26 May 2026 06:12:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from toucan.tulip.relay.mailchannels.net (toucan.tulip.relay.mailchannels.net [23.83.218.254]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 46DE8F536C90; Tue, 26 May 2026 06:12:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Sender-Id: inmotionhosting|x-authuser|eburger@standardstrack.com
Received: from relay.mailchannels.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C6664C2BBA; Tue, 26 May 2026 13:12:25 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from biz221.inmotionhosting.com (trex-green-4.trex.outbound.svc.cluster.local [100.101.154.94]) (Authenticated sender: inmotionhosting) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id B961B4C116C; Tue, 26 May 2026 13:12:24 +0000 (UTC)
X-Sender-Id: inmotionhosting|x-authuser|eburger@standardstrack.com
X-MC-Relay: Neutral
X-MailChannels-SenderId: inmotionhosting|x-authuser|eburger@standardstrack.com
X-MailChannels-Auth-Id: inmotionhosting
X-Spill-Juvenile: 57319b7e6857eb18_1779801145266_2461587021
X-MC-Loop-Signature: 1779801145266:3042309255
X-MC-Ingress-Time: 1779801145265
Received: from biz221.inmotionhosting.com (biz221.inmotionhosting.com [192.145.239.201]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) by 100.101.154.94 (trex/7.1.5); Tue, 26 May 2026 13:12:25 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=standardstrack.com; s=default; h=To:References:Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:From:Subject:Mime-Version: Content-Type:Sender:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=fYI44aWBNPwsa5ll+Fl2XXCrNnLjG7HEtKWmxMKg7zE=; b=Ki6Wzg96FpamFNZRSjutLYPd4g FKnV9szTh/dt/h7GZjwxfkmurs1z3QofFlMkkUjr7/Y+LXON0MaabRRPx3eaGlV51Nntdj7fliJmT Qty+v9VNViSbQGpiUd/CZZ7mW152Hduic4ZeSOp/WunnR4MoUIAkWJazC8+sbdW5YFXuXOJDmuHld w1YmP6xesZxRFwJlYDqSnEewxrSnkolc1XsIYJzFTxQRGHpA4uWXRivfeI7GR48aJbDtCfr4/hwH2 SYp8r+d6xVsccdp7lHaZdK3cAPFe89yGM9YraAKA/+r6/FMiZH88wsOuXtFJpIPmnWdpnfoggHNdU 36aAdYOw==;
Received: from [45.3.109.220] (port=1137 helo=smtpclient.apple) by biz221.inmotionhosting.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.99.2) (envelope-from <eburger@standardstrack.com>) id 1wRra5-0000000AyhX-3Ypm; Tue, 26 May 2026 06:12:24 -0700
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3864.600.51.1.1\))
From: Eric Burger <eburger@standardstrack.com>
In-Reply-To: <CB788129-2A5C-4028-B672-04F28BAED813@ninebynine.org>
Date: Tue, 26 May 2026 09:12:13 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <D903F2CA-3EC9-40F9-8A55-9B26534ED643@standardstrack.com>
References: <85ec7098-3ffb-4173-ba04-bcea9e7edac1@rfc-editor.org> <CB788129-2A5C-4028-B672-04F28BAED813@ninebynine.org>
To: Independent Submissions Editor <rfc-ise@rfc-editor.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3864.600.51.1.1)
X-AuthUser: eburger@standardstrack.com
Message-ID-Hash: DLFLDWIQLFSQDWFXF4GAZMJDJKF2A4UB
X-Message-ID-Hash: DLFLDWIQLFSQDWFXF4GAZMJDJKF2A4UB
X-MailFrom: eburger@standardstrack.com
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-uri-review.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: uri-review@ietf.org, draft-grimminck-safe-ioc-sharing@ietf.org, Stefan Grimminck <contact@stefangrimminck.nl>
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [Uri-review] Re: draft-grimminck-safe-ioc-sharing
List-Id: Proposed URI Schemes <uri-review.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/uri-review/li7oPZoYfRZXqfypeE6WtRPtT9Y>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/uri-review>
List-Help: <mailto:uri-review-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:uri-review-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:uri-review@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:uri-review-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:uri-review-leave@ietf.org>

I see little harm in progressing the draft. That is because I see value in the hxxp and hxxps registrations. However, unless lots of people are already using the square bracket scheme, that part is unlikely to get much traction. That said, unless there is a competing scheme in use in the wild, it cannot hurt to start suggesting a standard way forward for obscuring IoCs.

> On Apr 28, 2026, at 9:14 AM, Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
>> On 28 Apr 2026, at 12:29, Independent Submissions Editor (Eliot Lear) <rfc-ise@rfc-editor.org> wrote:
>> 
>> You may ask the IANA to reassign those two schemes to this draft.  At the least you should contact the original assignee.  If there is agreement, this should be a pretty easy thing.  You may also ask for a permanent allocation, but the process will get dragged out.
> 
> If you do this, I would suggest requesting “Historical” rather than “Permanent” allocation.  (Historical is still effectively permanent, but with a nuance of “not recommended for continued use”).  (I see no reason for this to drag out the process, given the review this has now had, but that’s no longer my call.)
> 
> #g
> _______________________________________________
> Uri-review mailing list -- uri-review@ietf.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to uri-review-leave@ietf.org

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status