Re: [xmpp] Brian Haberman's Discuss on draft-ietf-xmpp-6122bis-23: (with DISCUSS)

Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <peter@andyet.net> Wed, 10 June 2015 17:22 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 921501B2ED2 for <xmpp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 10:22:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.401
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.401 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, J_CHICKENPOX_35=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_37=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, 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 4C0tnz9xycCw for <xmpp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 10:22:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ig0-f173.google.com (mail-ig0-f173.google.com [209.85.213.173]) (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 00A3A1B2ED4 for <xmpp@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 10:22:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by igbpi8 with SMTP id pi8so40586063igb.0 for <xmpp@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 10:22:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=7T3EEvkVltE1S2owxP4kLzrFp6qNeqQxF4sA4mnyxWw=; b=JL3z7YI11auh5WaamGNVmX3DbjQCeBMhhxck2s9K5OG3fNDGfXE3Lstpd/SAD3tP0j FkwR5l0uCJ70JOvxb79M77UWQhNHyXfuucaRTx8cJd/NRAhBbWohn/lGwLDW5rBCWQ+l RO1qtOCbun4fH3zutlHELqS6tae5MpUu3XGKHEw7FJMpMY9DrfOI+TZSEnIzNn4W2FEY Avnm7bnszQTbYwZvQh6WxVfg1Sa9sx+BAEgoKEmjMwdrQHLYGQZ37bC8N3F9PSUw3oTG E0gxhUjn5/r1a40HKzTsjLy+d/o94yksowK4k7ko2jBhitx52zOoguPzUQDWUl94vAT2 rDMg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQloa8cG5Uu8O/R9CPxHWdYla8vCapXJnExfkympvgfqJIaHIk/iQOTC5LO+m0sB0U18XNv2
X-Received: by 10.43.76.195 with SMTP id zf3mr6064847icb.62.1433956944346; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 10:22:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aither.local ([2601:1:8200:3a60:89a0:20ab:ccd0:50f1]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id v3sm3640978igk.1.2015.06.10.10.22.22 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 10 Jun 2015 10:22:22 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <5578724E.10307@andyet.net>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 11:22:22 -0600
From: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <peter@andyet.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
References: <20150610142801.2677.38267.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <20150610142801.2677.38267.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/xmpp/s0fd6PW3yZZD1Q0bpwZxNiRvfgc>
Cc: xmpp-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-xmpp-6122bis@ietf.org, xmpp@ietf.org, draft-ietf-xmpp-6122bis.ad@ietf.org, draft-ietf-xmpp-6122bis.shepherd@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [xmpp] Brian Haberman's Discuss on draft-ietf-xmpp-6122bis-23: (with DISCUSS)
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 10 Jun 2015 17:22:27 -0000

Hi Brian, thanks for the review.

On 6/10/15 8:28 AM, Brian Haberman wrote:
> Brian Haberman has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-xmpp-6122bis-23: Discuss
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
>
>
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-xmpp-6122bis/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCUSS:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> This should be a relatively straightforward DISCUSS and may not result in
> any changes to the document...
>
> I see this definition in the draft:
> domainpart   = IP-literal / IPv4address / ifqdn
>                       ;
>                       ; the "IPv4address" and "IP-literal" rules are
>                       ; defined in RFC 3986, and the first-match-wins
>                       ; (a.k.a. "greedy") algorithm described therein
>                       ; applies to the matching process
>                       ;
>                       ; note well that reuse of the IP-literal rule from
>                       ; RFC 3986 implies that IPv6 addresses are enclosed
>                       ; in square brackets (i.e., beginning with '[' and
>                       ; ending with ']')
>
> RFC 3986 was updated by RFC 6874 to allow zone identifiers in address
> literals when the address is not globally scoped.  Was this considered in
> the drafting of this update?  RFC 6874 updates the ABNF to be:
>
>        IP-literal = "[" ( IPv6address / IPv6addrz / IPvFuture  ) "]"
>        ZoneID = 1*( unreserved / pct-encoded )
>        IPv6addrz = IPv6address "%25" ZoneID
>
> I suspect you will get varying results depending on how many implementers
> follow the Updates chain of 3986.

My apologies, I forgot that RFC 6874 updated RFC 3986 in this regard. If 
we keep this text, I agree that we should point to RFC 6974.

RFC 6122 had this text:

                       ; note well that reuse of the IP-literal rule
                       ; from RFC 3986 implies that IPv6 addresses are
                       ; enclosed in square brackets (i.e., beginning
                       ; with '[' and ending with ']'), which was not
                       ; the case in RFC 3920

We could, I suppose, remove this text entirely since it was meant to 
give implementers notice about the change from RFC 3920 to RFC 6122. 
However, I think it's always good to keep implementation notes of this 
kind. So, looking at this again, I think I would change it to:

                      ; the IPv4address and IP-literal rules are
                      ; defined in RFC 3986 and RFC 6874 respectively,
                      ; and the first-match-wins (a.k.a. "greedy")
                      ; algorithm described in Appendix B of RFC 3896
                      ; applies to the matching process
                      ;
                      ; note well that reuse of the IP-literal rule from
                      ; RFC 6874 implies that IPv6 addresses are enclosed
                      ; in square brackets (i.e., beginning with '[' and
                      ; ending with ']'), which was not the case with
                      ; the definition of the XMPP address format in
                      ; RFC 3920

However, I might want to move the last paragraph to an implementation 
note (not an ABNF comment) so that we have a proper reference to RFC 6874.

Peter