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

Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <peter@andyet.net> Wed, 09 September 2015 14:38 UTC

Return-Path: <peter@andyet.net>
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 74B311A1BC6 for <xmpp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Sep 2015 07:38:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 ZyY2Ev5bG3zT for <xmpp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Sep 2015 07:38:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ig0-f182.google.com (mail-ig0-f182.google.com [209.85.213.182]) (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 AA8A71B29F6 for <xmpp@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Sep 2015 07:38:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by igbkq10 with SMTP id kq10so105987284igb.0 for <xmpp@ietf.org>; Wed, 09 Sep 2015 07:38:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=keZp7HVDDC0uJJXYZAFTZsuuCt4WlP75JAEW5SIQzPA=; b=WwnsA+QLdHW96YuBegREiVujMrIRJy+Sz+rF+soWE9YFYsISL1bnwkLOHBx0FLBTSe jf7BoNtzrF3OMWnkX6H0xFZ01SoLE43bnrP9Xil008Ia5i9wzCNimxvlAmxQBMutlhgs 0SYj470cchQOAbHX6iAir8S+YTdldEeOA+aXPTztHCKzPup/r1G9ll1n+bi8A/UBO2xw W9DCVlCXEpb7ujEPRLU3C2nyX9krcq7XjaAIwRf9XE84V3VXDjk2K9nBoVbuBMW7kq/T hTHfg850yiDE+paLYrxLqdWbwmhUBmEnXMhnn4l4As6NwQV/2cP/WLKq0Lnpgm27K1aj YyYg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQm2Z6k4I4kPlhuW6jvonGRkwIBTmtNjc/AhxJMgz0e2EVs/k+lpWobnfT3vYl0G6dq1M5ZY
X-Received: by 10.50.66.232 with SMTP id i8mr52569810igt.34.1441809479920; Wed, 09 Sep 2015 07:37:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aither.local (c-73-34-202-214.hsd1.co.comcast.net. [73.34.202.214]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id 12sm4667171ioe.40.2015.09.09.07.37.59 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 09 Sep 2015 07:37:59 -0700 (PDT)
To: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <peter@andyet.net>, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
References: <20150805150244.8466.87044.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <55C2945E.9010503@andyet.net>
From: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <peter@andyet.net>
Message-ID: <55F04446.1010105@andyet.net>
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 08:37:58 -0600
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <55C2945E.9010503@andyet.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/xmpp/jRaIfdTdqt1PEn5UkoiEAEemfAw>
Cc: draft-ietf-xmpp-posh.shepherd@ietf.org, xmpp-chairs@ietf.org, xmpp@ietf.org, draft-ietf-xmpp-posh.ad@ietf.org, draft-ietf-xmpp-posh@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [xmpp] Stephen Farrell'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: Wed, 09 Sep 2015 14:38:08 -0000

Hi Stephen, here's further follow-up on the fingerprint syntax...

On 8/5/15 4:55 PM, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet wrote:

>> 3.1: fingerprints: sigh, I wish we could agree to just
>> do this kind of thing a few times and not re-do it over
>> and over and over (but we always do;-). RFC6920 could
>> probably have been used there (caveat lector: that's an
>> RFC I'm a co-author on).
>
> Sorry, I should have thought of RFC 6920 in this context. :(
>
> Matt and I will look at this. (He is offline this week so we won't be
> able to sync up until then.) We will also reach out to implementers
> because as I recall we chose this approach in part for ease of
> implementation.

We have investigated the possibility of switching from the syntax 
currently defined to RFC 6920. As far as we can see, that would involve 
something like this:

OLD

{
  "fingerprints": [
   {
    "sha-256":"4/mggdlVx8A3pvHAWW5sD+qJyMtUHgiRuPjVC48N0XQ="
   }
  ],
  "expires": 604800
}

NEW

{
  "fingerprints": [
   {
    "hash":"ni:///sha-256;4/mggdlVx8A3pvHAWW5sD+qJyMtUHgiRuPjVC48N0XQ="
   }
  ],
  "expires": 604800
}

The former requires only JSON parsing, whereas the latter requires both 
JSON parsing and URI parsing. Given that folks have already implemented 
the former, we think that asking them to add URI parsing for (in our 
opinion) somewhat negligible gain isn't worth the effort at this point.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://andyet.com/