Re: [xmpp] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-xmpp-posh-04: (with COMMENT)

Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Fri, 31 July 2015 05:55 UTC

Return-Path: <barryleiba@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: xmpp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: xmpp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94BBC1B319C; Thu, 30 Jul 2015 22:55:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.278
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.278 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 hO9Wkqs0Irxe; Thu, 30 Jul 2015 22:55:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vk0-x236.google.com (mail-vk0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::236]) (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 55D121B3191; Thu, 30 Jul 2015 22:55:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by vkci6 with SMTP id i6so18008116vkc.3; Thu, 30 Jul 2015 22:55:56 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=bJgS8ui/6j27h1hVERePtJsfJM0UyHkNCNZ/v0eXUfs=; b=Qskg7UcrrxQFNjYDyIZod4Ty7aG8jcr0AhFOG+vTxPqpsiCyFcmuZnZd5N5oc+Ukki zFUc8neP+SOX7ddxv89GOJ2vMoHCHDC69/JUME+tPgnRKewGLzuVCe8s9YotlIekz/D/ rUa4Qpf9ax1IfHrWLdHecDzG1K4FP/oeNmU4Yg/tZm/bZgIrw6lR9AE2H01Q8cSyva3s DuPQyyUgPKRr8/8DhVm7puFV8uAAgMzNiaS3pahvtiLPkS0QLCQ/xv2xMVmdjVOAMFva GKBkHM46hupAoglR04YRUf2BUZFOCmL4eLE8kd2oiJU38ilwQ755rhpPMvtVgUk16n+l fz1w==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.52.100.167 with SMTP id ez7mr1702733vdb.80.1438322156523; Thu, 30 Jul 2015 22:55:56 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: barryleiba@gmail.com
Received: by 10.31.88.196 with HTTP; Thu, 30 Jul 2015 22:55:56 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <55BACBBF.3060301@andyet.net>
References: <20150729090441.16993.2639.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <55BACBBF.3060301@andyet.net>
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2015 07:55:56 +0200
X-Google-Sender-Auth: APJVskRFauT6nppsZhcJYWYGqbU
Message-ID: <CALaySJ+k6Pt6b6UvhKNYgsk+=nMRfiSocd_T8aatRvLq4Vg+-w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
To: "Peter Saint-Andre - &yet" <peter@andyet.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/xmpp/Vcikwhh1Fln6Z7WfKlb0mCarFDw>
Cc: draft-ietf-xmpp-posh.shepherd@ietf.org, xmpp-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-xmpp-posh.ad@ietf.org, xmpp@ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-xmpp-posh@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [xmpp] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-xmpp-posh-04: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: xmpp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: XMPP Working Group <xmpp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/xmpp>, <mailto:xmpp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/xmpp/>
List-Post: <mailto:xmpp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xmpp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xmpp>, <mailto:xmpp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2015 05:55:59 -0000

Hi, Peter, and thanks for the quick response.  Only the last issue
remains to chat further about:

>> -- Section 8 --
>> I'm not terribly happy with the mechanism of having a faux hierarchy in
>> the .well-known name (posh.servicename.json), not registering any
>> .well-known name here, and asking the .well-known registry (via the
>> designated expert) to register and evaluate each POSH service -- the
>> .well-known DE is not an expert for POSH.  Also if, using your example,
>> Victoria Beckham should want to have a .well-known URI to access her
>> tweets from anywhere, returning them in JSON wrappers, she might want to
>> register "posh.spice.json", which would then get in the way of that name
>> for POSH, entirely unintentionally.
>>
>> I'd be much happier with using a real URI hierarchy and registering
>> "posh" as a .well-known name here, so a POSH URI might be this:
>>     https://hosting.example.net/.well-known/posh/spice/json
>> or this (I prefer the former, but don't really care):
>>     https://hosting.example.net/.well-known/posh/spice.json
>> ...and you might establish an FCFS registry of POSH service names under
>> which "spice" (or "spice.json") would be registered.  Now you're putting
>> it all under one .well-known name, and only asking the .well-known expert
>> to review this one, rather than one for every POSH service.
>
> We're not terribly happy with the faux hierarchy, either, and we considered
> the approach you suggest (and consulted on the matter with Mark Nottingham).
> Unfortunately, the specification for well-known URIs (RFC 5785) states:
>
>    Registered names MUST conform to the segment-nz production in
>    [RFC3986].
>
> Because the segment-nz production does not allow "/", a real hierarchy won't
> work.
>
> In practice, we are not expecting a large number of POSH registrations so I
> doubt that this would put a significant burden on the DE for the well-known
> URI registry. However, do you think it would be helpful to provide some
> additional guidance to the DE in this document?

The hierarchy would work fine: the point is that the registered
.well-known name would just be "posh", and would be registered once
here -- and that confirms fine to the .well-known requirements.  This
document would then specify the use of hierarchy under
.well-known/posh, and would create a (FCFS) registry for POSH service
names.

If you like, it could even do POSH service names and POSH format
names, and specify ".well-known/posh/<servicename>/<formatname>",
define one <formatname> as "json" and say that a registry could be
created in future if necessary.

I know that changing this would affect current implementations and
make them change, but I think it's worth it.  On the other hand, if
you don't agree, I won't push it further.  I just think it'd be much
better to have just "posh" as the registered .well-known "segment-nz".

Barry