Re: Request for well-known URI: est

SM <sm@resistor.net> Sat, 17 August 2013 04:16 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 7508511E81C0 for <wellknown-uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Aug 2013 21:16:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.429
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.429 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.170, 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 TdfSwU7Fm6jW for <wellknown-uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Aug 2013 21:16:46 -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 C3F3C11E80FD for <wellknown-uri-review@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 Aug 2013 21:16:46 -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 r7H4GX5I017473; Fri, 16 Aug 2013 21:16:37 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1376713003; bh=94XbRjUkP8iNJdYE9UwpwEfDM4D18+txtK/SodC+Eo4=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=RoBM7PbVvNyG3vHTnJZRtDO/A5UntDn0QfTs/aAWtHP4Ho9BClC301A3xQ3Waq2TN 2N/F1dv4oXB9WOU2JCJho6y7jb4BsfK3fhHd01kbqoCf8ud6pVB2IeXNY8gdH00VWB f3GTnsHH8RYfcRu8Q2r1PHtBzJdc/ILxsy7VwTZc=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1376713003; i=@resistor.net; bh=94XbRjUkP8iNJdYE9UwpwEfDM4D18+txtK/SodC+Eo4=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=dDizb98/FKSJfGmxK4yxq/3yXiKcYF6IBYgk2lZEXoJCzVj6Y0rtKs+aAN7lfHjOI UDJdNnc+DO2JiErcrilF1EutSeKt4MOp1J8WuE4Ux48VEA7zqCAf9YBc8dUJ//O8ha ew4/rzMQEnCXRhwxA0qWFR3DGRzJHjCtfKVMsPRw=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20130816204822.0bd5f230@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2013 20:58:28 -0700
To: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
From: SM <sm@resistor.net>
Subject: Re: Request for well-known URI: est
In-Reply-To: <520EEC88.8050108@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> <6.2.5.6.2.20130816200334.0d5a38b0@resistor.net> <520EEC88.8050108@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, 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 04:16:47 -0000

Hi Peter,
At 20:22 16-08-2013, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>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...

I don't think that you are making a mountain out of a mole hill.  I 
commented on the template to try and get the clerical issue out of the way.

I read RFC 5785.  Whether each of the well-known URIs needs to be 
added is subject to interpretation.  I don't think that it is 
possible to fix that, if a fix is needed, quickly.  The workaround 
would be to use the "related information" field to specify the syntax 
of additional path components.

Regards,
-sm