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

[Ted Hardie <[e-mail]>]

Hi Gaurav,

Thanks for considering my suggestions.  I personally see no problem with
Expert Review as the registration requirement here.  It is somewhat common
in those cases to include instructions to the expert (e.g. "Expert should
confirm that the registered item is described in a specification recognized
by the Wi-Fi Alliance"); you might consider that in this case if the expert
might change to another individual at a later time.

regards,

Ted Hardie

On Fri, Oct 5, 2018 at 3:23 PM Gaurav Jain <[e-mail]> wrote:

> 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 <[e-mail]> 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
>
> [phone] Office
> [phone] Mobile
>
> Wi-Fi Alliance
> www.wi-fi.org
> http://twitter.com/wifialliance
> www.facebook.com/wificertified
>
>
>
> Visit our blog, The Beacon <http://www.wi-fi.org/beacon>, for Wi-Fi
> industry topics and trends
>
>
>
> *From:* Ted Hardie <[e-mail]>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 18, 2018 7:45 AM
> *To:* Gaurav Jain <[e-mail]>
> *Cc:* [e-mail]
> *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,
>
>
>
> regards,
>
>
>
> Ted Hardie
>
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 1:14 PM, Gaurav Jain <[e-mail]> 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)
>    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
>
> [phone] Office
> [phone] Mobile
>
> Wi-Fi Alliance
> www.wi-fi.org
> http://twitter.com/wifialliance
> www.facebook.com/wificertified
>
>
>
> Visit our blog, The Beacon <http://www.wi-fi.org/beacon>, for Wi-Fi
> industry topics and trends
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Uri-review mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review
>
>
>