Re: Revision of RFC 7302

Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com> Mon, 02 May 2016 21:58 UTC

Return-Path: <ted.ietf@gmail.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 B7EB712D1A3 for <urn-nid@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 May 2016 14:58:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-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 sUeRpi3N-oFZ for <urn-nid@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 May 2016 14:58:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi0-x22d.google.com (mail-oi0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::22d]) (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 468F612D662 for <urn-nid@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 May 2016 14:58:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oi0-x22d.google.com with SMTP id x19so2370886oix.2 for <urn-nid@ietf.org>; Mon, 02 May 2016 14:58:19 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=hGf/xBk+dAwCv45FuRHrMrZzjebzpqygA433EJzxjEk=; b=isw6n3qtUmj+LJw3Xu5Yy0mDnHLxaQ8chZ4jpQZG+uP+6R2kNT03EAe2EZ8qHxX+TE rD43yPD6NABU1tXr95ZhYooOjdgbUAZCIwUZBgSHYrTRtPraUY/4W2XZ6/QTxirCya8Y iytq2NKQHR/axjkaqv44pD5yuG4f5q9qe5dETupHoWCtn2B6uO47d7fxiW9Ndbl5Ndle NqXsTP1tChiQlA5kmvNR3v/D1uiRHVCqSu8eRJv6tykjCEnlXqDlzsMspCTt2R7h7hWr oKJaHq8e7yqLnbJ1OnUSp74NlCQ8bpk9rFhagAPbMn9CIf0hnHuP1xB6E/eKAQm3WsHB O2vw==
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=hGf/xBk+dAwCv45FuRHrMrZzjebzpqygA433EJzxjEk=; b=ggPL0E+eNCJKiTGu/OYRD4ZkPlF/1OPlN12YAAdORMtIkxsJ5UCRJgSXPpyuoQvXvS 2Y1m6QnNDt7hGqRD7D7aW1RQ3xaNkWL4g98Uu7awbCnaqATuhskuGQHBwhq7ozqdW92N amezI0VpZH66fu3x5xaUsRsKVuRa/Yk3z3GooOBXWyJj4WwGAVSBJkpILf0GzMPSTJSU dU1bNcGi7WSUFobg11aB6qqFBnOEV8PYEQZ6ASErdhcBaxxiFZAmFhf/KnwJ1KYVLO94 cTlwo7hhj/6DEwPUmFG+6IEtkIXgw/KboxNFIvC/U49bpYUaaCtAa13WTWFbhSx3bZJ2 tqXA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FXU8JUoCR573qVy7fpqIBLUu+Q9hcZW+D4JdpB6QmJ4Lk8GmdjuSCjf2D/P8PnP7KC3B7QpID4uQiGneQ==
X-Received: by 10.157.9.100 with SMTP id 91mr15312573otp.142.1462226298623; Mon, 02 May 2016 14:58:18 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.157.22.186 with HTTP; Mon, 2 May 2016 14:57:59 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAF_7JxBiHZrXGXM+KJi173MXoi9NkhZzKGgamDxkJqZTZ+w7Zw@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> <CAF_7JxBiHZrXGXM+KJi173MXoi9NkhZzKGgamDxkJqZTZ+w7Zw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 14:57:59 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+9kkMDdpyLtyH0D4-JMV5kkYNc6GQBs8m8i6axoKhAfGE-YjQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Revision of RFC 7302
To: Pierre-Anthony Lemieux <pal@sandflow.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c04f3fc1c5dc00531e31727
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/urn-nid/NMHMnqjOPvuMW7ZnQOQklQ_afOY>
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 21:58:22 -0000

On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 2:40 PM, Pierre-Anthony Lemieux <pal@sandflow.com>;
wrote:

> 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?
>
> My best guess would be "no", but others may chime in with other data.  I'd
start
with leaving it at 1, and seeing if a reason emerges to bump it up.

regards,

Ted Hardie



> 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)]
> >> >>
> >> >
> >
> >
>