Re: [Uri-review] Please advise as to how to proceed

Frank Ellermann <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com> Tue, 10 October 2017 03:00 UTC

Return-Path: <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@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 91B96132153 for <uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Oct 2017 20:00:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.499
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pJ-eP25ENRTG for <uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Oct 2017 20:00:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ua0-x242.google.com (mail-ua0-x242.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c08::242]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 90E6813202D for <uri-review@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Oct 2017 20:00:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ua0-x242.google.com with SMTP id 103so6438248uas.0 for <uri-review@ietf.org>; Mon, 09 Oct 2017 20:00:21 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=UhvBSDtaZ1ZQ17F7Yo/X2uVEqA+aWbz4kV/1wlkUCl8=; b=qPh4uhQZnEDZisetN0QoXRnqCpKQHD3amglUGUPH3uTa9qrV9/aRmPwqE1GzFl6EfB Y6DSQG3owAj/UrUob1gdMiMm5wzP0P/NfSocIqbucFlndzmTC/sb4UzFVYYrSpZhhbhh v0/8cr3HrWRscEjgiFzw3zDjDUVNbPqttzyZBGIz4aeEzGIJEK4GU7qZ60h0mrJ7hbY3 CRUSqP2GLXYA1NIP2m96Jhv7E16gipZn8AkGGj5Y1lNTbLfN5mHf61+YlqRvW4+5WevG nQIKbEpAP5zsn85Nw/fvsvoO4hIzg5C48UVT7s9NB7T7+uEwhctncQCsOgGVaZlwquh+ E9qA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=UhvBSDtaZ1ZQ17F7Yo/X2uVEqA+aWbz4kV/1wlkUCl8=; b=kpxYSydI/E8/4gl7cWN6fXsEcpAvNexrfa1frhZVll5YmpUogqUoVgMwwkAMaUqdcP weGiE8Q4V7PslSpk08+HCF3MrHgcs8WtUX1qRv2qdsLaQJT8Z1accbcL2lYJT0ZVVCMl yecbR5K36lIGbu2ruqzxVKZwfBp6jTYH4X8yuzM9n+ZagBta2mjElR/ajd8LBrs6jVfz l95WWWUpGP7uXA4+lCjBqn1ULRM3kXeWx6Ld52GPxGZPnWOsWRpeto0EcLaRcAP9ySIy Z1mbFdUuJ3i0/kihdBSGSM9iM+zotgFLpCjyjbtpz9bktFjPwghhXp5p7I1zdf/Yfo5q nTgA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMCzsaWAt/T2uLuquOZulW+7sx0tayX0RzICgM9AB0LI/IIA2fKWQW8O Ct5Gw/O9uMVMB34toX/TAbefwi4CpKFJWt86+kRYhDY=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AOwi7QDZrAv/toec4GmFFDQ+duAAsHOVWiiGA/ZCNsjiqdx3hFEUI+L0R8REGZvU6kCojfl4geflfM0y+Am29o6POIM=
X-Received: by 10.176.91.15 with SMTP id u15mr2891989uae.77.1507604420549; Mon, 09 Oct 2017 20:00:20 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.176.95.196 with HTTP; Mon, 9 Oct 2017 19:59:40 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <59A83D50.8070902@ninebynine.org>
References: <CAFWmBYreYf-n=Uj3VFBrAAce2dmqQ-wcSTPQMXgr2wuzvj7ZKw@mail.gmail.com> <59A83D50.8070902@ninebynine.org>
From: Frank Ellermann <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 04:59:40 +0200
Message-ID: <CAHhFybo2kGctR=bBKyfvMwwc+J7P+c5S2+azBbkR-y+pLzF98A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
Cc: Tarek Al-Hariri <thariri@gdg.io>, IETF URI review <uri-review@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/uri-review/phZbgTsUUZ-aK-xxKj5xtmi1Wm4>
Subject: Re: [Uri-review] Please advise as to how to proceed
X-BeenThere: uri-review@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 03:00:24 -0000

At the moment https://dev.gdg.io/docs/spec does not work for me
(ERR_NAME_NOT_RESOLVED)

On 31 August 2017 at 18:46, Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org> wrote:
> On 30/08/2017 20:13, Tarek Al-Hariri wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>> Request for provisional uri, per text appended
>> Please advise accordingly.
>
>
> It would help me if the template said something about what 'gdg' if for.
> (Saying "Connecting to a gdg server" doesn't really help me - a sentence and
> pointer to a description of what a GDG server does would be more helpful.)
> In particular, I'd like to see some indication of what it is that a gdg URI
> actually identifies.
>
> There's a typo in the security considerations ("senisitive").  Also,
> security is about more than just transmission (or not) of sensitive data.
> It would be nice (but not required for a provisional registration) to see
> this dealt with more carefully.  I'd at least suggest dropping the "none"
> from that section.    It's OK for security considerations in the
> registration template to reference an existing document - we're not trying
> to make work here.  If you don't have any kind of security analysis, it
> would probably be better to just say so - that would not be a blocker for a
> provisional registration (though it wouldn't fly for a permanent
> registration).
>
>
> See also:
>
> - https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7595#section-4 -- in particular, I'd
> suggest putting the documentation online before actually requesting
> registration (see next).  Removing the bit about being ignored would look
> more professional, IMO.
>
> - https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7595#section-7.2 -- in particular, bullet
> point 4.  This list is the venue for review of proposed registrations (and
> it's good that you have sent your proposal here for review), but is not the
> place to send actual registration requests.
>
> I'd recommend holding off sending your request to IANA until your spec is
> actually online - indeed, you might get more constructive feedback here if
> the spec is available for folks to see.
>
> I hope this helps,
>
> #g
> --
>
>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Scheme name:
>>    gdg
>>
>> Status:
>>    Provisional.
>>
>> Applications/protocols that use this scheme name:
>>    GDG
>>
>> Contact:
>>    Tarek Hariri
>>    <tarekalhariri&gdg.io>
>>    GDG
>>    1255 23rd Street NW
>>    DC 20037-1125
>>    USA
>>
>> Change controller:
>>    GDG
>>
>> References:
>>    None
>>    (documentation will be publicly available (and, we suspect, largely
>> ignored) at https://dev.gdg.io/docs/spec as of 00:22 2017-10-10)
>>
>> Scheme syntax:
>>    <gdg://> and <gdg:> are both valid:
>>    gdg://<host>[:port][/[<identifier>][<collection>]]
>>    gdg:<host>[:port][/[<identifier>][<collection>]]
>>    gdg:[<prefix>/<handleid>]
>>
>>    where <prefix> maps one-to-one with a gdg handle identifier (eg.
>> 10.22157, 20.500.12056, 20.500.12057) provides basic lookup / validation
>> for identifiers. (Technically, any non-gdg handle.net identifier, not just
>> gdg, should resolve, but this use is highly exotic and largely
>> discouraged).
>>
>> Scheme semantics:
>>    tl;dr Connecting to a gdg server, database, or cluster; retrieving a
>> record.
>>
>>    Intended use includes operating systems or applicable environments
>> (&c.)
>> with gdg application installed, or other means affording connection to a
>> gdg server.
>>
>> Encoding considerations:
>>    The scheme and method portions of this proposed URI mitigate
>> confrontation with encoding issues by limiting itself to a subset of
>> ASCII.
>>    URI query portion shall be encoded according to the rules in RFC 3986.
>>
>> Interoperability considerations:
>>    none.
>>
>> Security considerations:
>>    none.
>>    URI is not intended for transmission of senisitive data.
>>
>>
>> ————
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Tarek Hariri
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Uri-review mailing list
>> Uri-review@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Uri-review mailing list
> Uri-review@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review