RE: Request for well-known URI: ets

ETSI CyberSupport <CyberSupport@etsi.org> Fri, 10 May 2019 06:48 UTC

Return-Path: <CyberSupport@etsi.org>
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 DB256120203 for <wellknown-uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 May 2019 23:48:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.3
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.3 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=etsi.org
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 Vkmqzzsx9CCL for <wellknown-uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 May 2019 23:48:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relay.etsi.org (relay.etsi.org [195.238.226.209]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1CAA512018B for <wellknown-uri-review@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 May 2019 23:47:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; s=1524829736.etsi; d=etsi.org; h=From:To:CC:Subject:Date:Message-ID:References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; i=CyberSupport@etsi.org; bh=NNSdXp9SLThT58XgcuV0J2ztNKU/I6DKZVx01Donmh0=; b=rRNwOcdIKZ9A/PZxY2e7/vyXWBxPYGcqJOdcXgKOYtw3oiAije/dlKRGY/4n/d2uzfCjJFm/1P5u a9/o+HmOJNPYVELCsYe+gje7qs8L0a9mQTePxf64uYIdXRL8plovLrA/P+i4DbLWE6gMBKj9OUz1 qjPx3qo/CD9cbc5I9XY=
Received: from outbound.etsi.org (172.27.1.75) by relay.etsi.org id hqkf942gvlc9 for <wellknown-uri-review@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 May 2019 07:47:40 +0100 (envelope-from <CyberSupport@etsi.org>)
Received: from XMAIL.etsihq.org (172.27.1.75) by xMail.etsihq.org (172.27.1.75) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1236.3; Fri, 10 May 2019 08:47:40 +0200
Received: from XMAIL.etsihq.org ([172.27.1.75]) by xMail.etsihq.org ([172.27.1.75]) with mapi id 15.00.1236.000; Fri, 10 May 2019 08:47:40 +0200
From: ETSI CyberSupport <CyberSupport@etsi.org>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
CC: "wellknown-uri-review@ietf.org" <wellknown-uri-review@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: Request for well-known URI: ets
Thread-Topic: Request for well-known URI: ets
Thread-Index: AdTqBYeVzmt3AmwdQmObL48glszlcQDjokGABlnqSfA=
Date: Fri, 10 May 2019 06:47:39 +0000
Message-ID: <0df132aee40041318adaa85048936dd9@xMail.etsihq.org>
References: <ecb7980ee9da48ed92c71d6546bed0b5@xMail.etsihq.org> <2ED04D76-AF0D-42C1-9D84-31544ABE614A@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <2ED04D76-AF0D-42C1-9D84-31544ABE614A@mnot.net>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [109.16.46.41]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/wellknown-uri-review/H3q4_aQkOCWoq_yQM8s4x-Zf--I>
X-BeenThere: wellknown-uri-review@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Fri, 10 May 2019 06:48:24 -0000

Dear Mark,

Finally getting back to you. The group considered your feedback and proposes to expand ets.
So the URI suffix is proposed to be: enterprise-transport-security

Does it work?

Thank you
Best regards,
Sonia

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>; 
Sent: 08 April 2019 2:49 AM
To: ETSI CyberSupport <CyberSupport@etsi.org>;
Cc: wellknown-uri-review@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Request for well-known URI: ets

Hello,

Thank you for the request. The only issue I see is that the name 'ets' is quite short, for such a specific purpose; as per RFC5785bis:

> Registered names for a specific application SHOULD be correspondingly precise; “squatting” on generic terms is not encouraged. For example, if the Example application wants a well-known location for metadata, an appropriate registered name might be “example-metadata” or even “example.com-metadata”, not “metadata”.

As such a name like "etsi-ets" would be more appropriate. Would changing it cause issues (i.e., is this protocol already seeing wide deployment)?

Regards,



> On 3 Apr 2019, at 9:18 pm, ETSI CyberSupport <CyberSupport@etsi.org>; wrote:
> 
> Dear wellknown-uri-review group,
>  
> Please find below a request to register a Well-Known URI:
>  
> URI suffix: ets
>  
> Change controller:  ETSI (TC CYBER) cybersupport@etsi.org
>  
> Specification document(s): ETSI TS 103 523-3 clause 4.3.8.3 available at  https://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_ts/103500_103599/10352303/01.02.01_60/ts_10352303v010201p.pdf
>  
> Best regards
> ETSI TC CYBER support.
> 

--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/