Re: Request for well-known URI: est

Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> Sat, 17 August 2013 03:22 UTC

Return-Path: <stpeter@stpeter.im>
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 0C81821F9EC9 for <wellknown-uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Aug 2013 20:22:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, 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 poW0bXzE5h9U for <wellknown-uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Aug 2013 20:22:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB84411E80E9 for <wellknown-uri-review@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 Aug 2013 20:22:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ergon.local (unknown [71.237.13.154]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 91767414F7; Fri, 16 Aug 2013 21:25:56 -0600 (MDT)
Message-ID: <520EEC88.8050108@stpeter.im>
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2013 21:22:48 -0600
From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130620 Thunderbird/17.0.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: SM <sm@resistor.net>
Subject: Re: Request for well-known URI: est
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> <6.2.5.6.2.20130816200334.0d5a38b0@resistor.net>
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20130816200334.0d5a38b0@resistor.net>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Dan Harkins <dharkins@arubanetworks.com>, draft-ietf-pkix-est@tools.ietf.org, "Max Pritikin \(pritikin\)" <pritikin@cisco.com>, app-ads@tools.ietf.org, Sean Turner <turners@ieca.com>, 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 03:22:55 -0000

On 8/16/13 9:13 PM, SM wrote:
> 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?

I don't think that really helps matters, because it's still unclear
whether each of the well-known URIs (cacerts, simpleenroll, etc.) needs
to be added to the registry, whether IANA needs to deny future requests
that start with "est" (e.g., "/.well-known/estimation") since "the
syntax of additional path components" (RFC 5785) is not specified, etc.
If the EST spec is reserving any path component after "est" (as in
"/.well-known/est/cacerts", "/.well-known/est/arbitraryLabel1/cacerts",
etc.) then IMHO that needs to be defined in the EST spec. I don't think
the EST spec is trying to reserve *any* well-known URI that starts with
"est" but that too isn't clear. I think we all have a sense of what the
EST spec and RFC 5785 are trying to do in such cases, but it's not
specified very well in this case or in general.

But maybe I'm making a mountain out of a mole hill...

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/