Re: Revision of RFC 7302

Pierre-Anthony Lemieux <pal@sandflow.com> Mon, 02 May 2016 21:41 UTC

Return-Path: <pal@sandflow.com>
X-Original-To: urn-nid@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: urn-nid@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB2AF12D5A3 for <urn-nid@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 May 2016 14:41:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sandflow-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 zS4NS1IhIwER for <urn-nid@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 May 2016 14:41:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io0-x232.google.com (mail-io0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::232]) (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 D2ADE12D523 for <urn-nid@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 May 2016 14:41:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io0-x232.google.com with SMTP id f89so5296997ioi.0 for <urn-nid@ietf.org>; Mon, 02 May 2016 14:41:10 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sandflow-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=gRM/dtjaDM7S3CInQWn/mrmQkzTbr1vdZJn0+rLaGFo=; b=hZzdb0wHTbYea5ClHV2VWJS8R4ADQh37sSb20LKJqB8o7OQcCshWz4Jg2TNxDbOnD/ x74FDNpBu5NmEftRx9+uGACm7Zd6l49vcnTk7Ny6NzIwuzTQfxsLuNkx6QfoyWVQ6sjM FKT9i/PfXn46hc3tBT4rr1AdPhFtHXPlkCyivLHaO/Df/p4cpQ5CZJ66Ny7LMaiSnxuc 3lG/qDbI+KjyoK+y/ky/NmpVXvGm/uGB2VZwAHA9CCwdnCAeWI1XoyHjgNCeIjcwmAlj i6XHQ+yDiSynzvor1rotT2OAYhMeaFVVLHDA3o5DkVKxsJkssIbEtJMSOIH3axkYzNor eaow==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=gRM/dtjaDM7S3CInQWn/mrmQkzTbr1vdZJn0+rLaGFo=; b=JQeWJ6Wca+a6WdLRjGQsOhKt1ODQzBaRnBpXVeXbfz/xqX59/JBQ2QuYTI/34Vbdze n8sHLI02mRSJp1n0vu4+b/4yF1BAn3X7+E6LLFtBfxqutB1kU7lbzsB9CQE8BEcKOR10 +7ZM/7N5jGiTVrox0Bkp/JZO3DsSRPGOqdXI2py1oHCZnk1IEFO4Q8zs+egfIYfwqq4n 6XnmImUMrPCYl0ttfbxL5ktLKVyBNkRuQbr7AUMasOtRd3HCiS93/J8nLrKJhhrstfw5 4f5NqMIgQFmUvkZxw0FVzVzIrGGnIPTuGvcbzh/l63eaSw+tl2+Vj8v6xtA6AJAj6QPr sIlQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FXc5B4c6S03436PlRY+HN90zUqNTwIj4DmLZwVsOoM2POSa/Qo/1MCg5VCyoZwigw==
X-Received: by 10.107.63.214 with SMTP id m205mr43588401ioa.15.1462225270268; Mon, 02 May 2016 14:41:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ig0-f177.google.com (mail-ig0-f177.google.com. [209.85.213.177]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id b202sm409683ioe.27.2016.05.02.14.41.09 for <urn-nid@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 02 May 2016 14:41:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ig0-f177.google.com with SMTP id s8so4510210ign.0 for <urn-nid@ietf.org>; Mon, 02 May 2016 14:41:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.50.93.42 with SMTP id cr10mr23121405igb.24.1462225269432; Mon, 02 May 2016 14:41:09 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.79.39.148 with HTTP; Mon, 2 May 2016 14:40:49 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CA+9kkMBCSp+PHnBOnu+Tim+DTK8j7vfNC1sXVTB2P_VxXqPhxw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAF_7JxBSXo-EjC3-11Yop5W_Sgo4mWoPvb7SGxH90V9QVHPbUw@mail.gmail.com> <CA+9kkMD=ArH=Y+WxQ-SJ0m3Y3Ka-4pZQhtvifx5H9aAZUqv9XA@mail.gmail.com> <CAF_7JxBO29RGMSwvniEqTiidOFguZ=FQU99GaYTgHvdoSjVqKQ@mail.gmail.com> <CA+9kkMBCSp+PHnBOnu+Tim+DTK8j7vfNC1sXVTB2P_VxXqPhxw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Pierre-Anthony Lemieux <pal@sandflow.com>
Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 14:40:49 -0700
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <CAF_7JxBiHZrXGXM+KJi173MXoi9NkhZzKGgamDxkJqZTZ+w7Zw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAF_7JxBiHZrXGXM+KJi173MXoi9NkhZzKGgamDxkJqZTZ+w7Zw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Revision of RFC 7302
To: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/urn-nid/L4IkGZeiANv-FHuh1BelkjeYO-0>
Cc: "urn-nid@ietf.org" <urn-nid@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: urn-nid@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: discussion of new namespace identifiers for URNs <urn-nid.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/urn-nid>, <mailto:urn-nid-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/urn-nid/>
List-Post: <mailto:urn-nid@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:urn-nid-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/urn-nid>, <mailto:urn-nid-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 May 2016 21:41:12 -0000

Hi Ted,

> You can include an appendix with a list of the changes.  That's non-normative,
> but it would likely be consulted by anyone who wanted to simply check on the
> relationship between the two.

This sounds like a promising approach since the reader is left with
only one document to consult and it sounds like the IANA entry will
need to be amended regardless.

I plan to revise the I-D accordingly unless I hear objections.

Should the Registration Information/Version be incremented to "2" even
though the identifier semantics/syntax do not change?

Best,

-- Pierre

On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 1:34 PM, Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>; wrote:
> On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 1:11 PM, Pierre-Anthony Lemieux <pal@sandflow.com>;
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Ted,
>>
>> I appreciate the quick review.
>>
>> > Looking through this, it appears that only the process for identifier
>> > resolution has changed.
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>> > Given that, a much shorter document updating RFC 7302 noting the change
>> > might be simpler.
>>
>> This would require the reader to consult two documents -- not sure
>> this is fatal however.
>>
>> If the "updates" approach is chosen, would IANA [1] continue to
>> reference RFC 7302, or would instead reference the updated RFC?
>>
> It would reference them both; see the dvb entry for an example.
>
>>
>> [1] http://www.iana.org/assignments/urn-namespaces/urn-namespaces.xhtml
>>
>> > But given the general stability requirements for URNs, highlighting that
>> > the only
>> > changes are to resolution might be useful.
>>
>> If the "obsolete" path is chosen, perhaps there is a way to explicitly
>> highlight the (very limited) changes, beyond the short description in
>> the abstract?
>>
> You can include an appendix with a list of the changes.  That's
> non-normative,
> but it would likely be consulted by anyone who wanted to simply check on the
> relationship between the two.
>
>>
>> IMHO it would be ideal to update RFC 7302 in place, since the changes
>> do not impact identifier semantics, but this is not possible, right?
>>
> That's correct; once issues, RFCs don't change in place.
>
> regard,
>
> Ted Hardie
>
>
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> -- Pierre
>>
>> On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 11:02 AM, Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>; wrote:
>> > Thanks for the pointer.  The RFC series allows a document to update a
>> > previous document, as well as along one to obsolete a previous document.
>> > Looking through this, it appears that only the process for identifier
>> > resolution has changed.  Given that, a much shorter document updating
>> > RFC
>> > 7302 noting the change might be simpler.
>> >
>> > Generally speaking this is a stylistic choice, and there is certainly no
>> > requirement to take that path.  But given the general stability
>> > requirements
>> > for URNs, highlighting that the only changes are to resolution might be
>> > useful.
>> >
>> > regards,
>> >
>> > Ted Hardie
>> >
>> > On Sat, Apr 30, 2016 at 2:23 PM, Pierre-Anthony Lemieux
>> > <pal@sandflow.com>;
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Good morning/evening,
>> >>
>> >> Please find at the link below a proposed revision of RFC 7302. This
>> >> revision adds support for confidential resolution of EIDR Identifiers
>> >> using HTTP over TLS -- addressing a known limitation of RFC 7302.
>> >>
>> >> https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-pal-eidr-urn-2016-00.txt
>> >>
>> >> Very much looking forward to your comments and feedback. Let me know
>> >> if you need additional information.
>> >>
>> >> Best,
>> >>
>> >> -- Pierre [on behalf of MovieLabs (http://movielabs.com)]
>> >>
>> >
>
>