Re: Request for well-known URI: est

SM <sm@resistor.net> Sat, 17 August 2013 03:14 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@resistor.net>
X-Original-To: wellknown-uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: wellknown-uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C77F311E820C for <wellknown-uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Aug 2013 20:14:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.417
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.417 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.182, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 37hPB40H2oZB for <wellknown-uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Aug 2013 20:14:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DBEF11E8201 for <wellknown-uri-review@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 Aug 2013 20:14:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SUBMAN.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r7H3ED6a004476; Fri, 16 Aug 2013 20:14:16 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1376709262; bh=Kb+orDieUud1PCDX+R6DEXFuFAGH3kwFZazWduR1CBE=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=B4BYx4PkILMOEmisX0oR9Y24+odV/xnnn8sRfHfnUNxeAZbCcR2tcIp/7gRfDxnYJ m47FaTC9XccH8Zin5FxVMK/dAVG3eGrBxAInNkAtDbzPkiTdL8uST+JXJqhA7KX7+8 vFzgdnszug1txZyVGfNOkFwryxWsvqAfWizAt078=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1376709262; i=@resistor.net; bh=Kb+orDieUud1PCDX+R6DEXFuFAGH3kwFZazWduR1CBE=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=GhTpUzp5Thyc8tT1nmRebxNLuPSqcbYiCV3kxL/NwvqtcqrgONMRGDBQVutfvek1K UfwqCVLCgm0NmdA9pKPx9t2Qk3w1iFY+j2vCysXJ2zQiKV4Nif0hmCZ5z51TQtnxeG vsnjKagfu0YhAPZLTzkokotAd+qDMy+hslhD7RFY=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20130816200334.0d5a38b0@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2013 20:13:57 -0700
To: Sean Turner <turners@ieca.com>
From: SM <sm@resistor.net>
Subject: Re: Request for well-known URI: est
In-Reply-To: <520EE500.3080103@stpeter.im>
References: <CE32E9BA.1F636%dharkins@arubanetworks.com> <520EAF60.2010509@stpeter.im> <CALaySJKxr1bxqo554zLQN2ttv=KdBoV4qnOnBaCWVXbX1NrRog@mail.gmail.com> <520EE13B.4020909@stpeter.im> <CALaySJJ6XWH8JNok26C5pv7JM-_6hqBHG1aGxDvKZGdh=erkGw@mail.gmail.com> <520EE500.3080103@stpeter.im>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Cc: Dan Harkins <dharkins@arubanetworks.com>, draft-ietf-pkix-est@tools.ietf.org, "Max Pritikin \(pritikin\)" <pritikin@cisco.com>, app-ads@tools.ietf.org, wellknown-uri-review@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: wellknown-uri-review@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Well-Known URI review list <wellknown-uri-review.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/wellknown-uri-review>, <mailto:wellknown-uri-review-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/wellknown-uri-review>
List-Post: <mailto:wellknown-uri-review@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:wellknown-uri-review-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/wellknown-uri-review>, <mailto:wellknown-uri-review-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2013 03:14:25 -0000

Hi Sean,
At 19:50 16-08-2013, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>The IANA Considerations section of the EST spec says:
>
>    IANA is to update the well-known URI registry with the following
>    filled-in template from [RFC5785].
>
>       URI suffix: est
>
>       Change controller: IETF
>
>That doesn't cover what it needs to cover, i.e., the kind of information
>mentioned in RFC 5785:
>
>    Typically, a registration will reference a specification that defines
>    the format and associated media type to be obtained by dereferencing
>    the well-known URI.
>
>    It MAY also contain additional information, such as the syntax of
>    additional path components, query strings and/or fragment identifiers
>    to be appended to the well-known URI, or protocol-specific details
>    (e.g., HTTP [RFC2616] method handling).
>
>None of that "additional information" is in the registration request, so
>it's not clear to me that IANA will have the information it needs to
>properly process this registration.

IANA, in its review of the draft, mentioned that it needs the 
following information:

   URI suffix: est
   Change controller: IETF
   Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]
   Related Information:
   Date Registered: [ TBD-at-registration ]
   Date Modified:

Could you please suggest to the authors of draft-ietf-pkix-est to add:

   Reference: [this document]

to the request for the well-known URI in Section 6?

Regards,
-sm