RE: Last Call: draft-mcwalter-uri-mib (Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) MIB) to Proposed Standard
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: Last Call: draft-mcwalter-uri-mib (Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) MIB) to Proposed Standard

 RFC 3986 contains a (brief) description of security considerations
for agents that produce or receive and interpret URIs. I would expect
this document to at the very least reference those security considerations
more explicitly, and at best to analyze how they apply in particular
to URIs used within SNMP.

It's not clear whether it makes sense for SNMP URIs to contain,
for example, 'data:' URIs or 'urn:' or any of a number of schemes,
and I would expect some discussion about the applicability of
URIs within a SNMP context.

URIs are defined as a sequence of characters, not a sequence of
octets. The mapping should be explicit (e.g., 'use US-ASCII') and not
implicit.

In practice, many systems allow and produce IRIs (RFC 3987)
and not URIs, to allow for accents and non-roman scripts. I wonder
if it would be more appropriate to define the MIB value as an IRI
encoded in UTF-8, for example.

Larry




> -----Original Message-----
> From: The IESG [mailto:iesg-secretary at ietf.org] 
> Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 3:02 PM
> To: IETF-Announce
> Cc: uri-review at ietf.org; uri at w3.org
> Subject: Last Call: draft-mcwalter-uri-mib (Uniform Resource 
> Identifier (URI) MIB) to Proposed Standard 
> 
> The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter 
> to consider
> the following document:
> 
> - 'Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) MIB '
>    <draft-mcwalter-uri-mib-02.txt> as a Proposed Standard
> 
> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
> final comments on this action.  Please send substantive 
> comments to the
> ietf at ietf.org mailing lists by 2007-03-08. Exceptionally, 
> comments may be sent to iesg at ietf.org instead. In either case, please 
> retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
> 
> The file can be obtained via
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-mcwalter-uri-mib-02.txt
> 
> 
> IESG discussion can be tracked via
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=vie
w_id&dTag=15468&rfc_flag=0
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> IETF-Announce mailing lis	for <ietf at ietf.org>; Thu, 08 Feb 2007 20:03:51 -0800 (PST)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta;
	h=received:reply-to:to:cc:references:subject:date:message-id:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-mailer:thread-index:x-mimeole:in-reply-to:from;
	b=r6IWrxUy2gcU1MM+xBo7Xzi8XKtDxPEgx4xtgFUbHPQut7ctt97MNn6xBfFMYYLomvYBLwKmYYYE0B7bpj80Wzl/gr6SjcimT6qrd9IEZq80e4Loa5ksIdenkWP+BEav0oFN21rfquUynqaX7bR2xFiMt4gfaOU92QtRDb0hCjQ=
Received: by 10.70.111.2 with SMTP id j2mr16334636wxc.1170993831886;
	Thu, 08 Feb 2007 20:03:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from masinterlap06 ( [24.6.159.62])
	by mx.google.com with ESMTP id i18sm5022413wxd.2007.02.08.20.03.49;
	Thu, 08 Feb 2007 20:03:50 -0800 (PST)
To: <ietf at ietf.org>
References: <E1HFIHB-0007EX-AR at stiedprstage1.ietf.org>
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 20:03:47 -0800
Message-ID: <000c01c74bff$4da65ac0$49552099 at adobenet.global.adobe.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
Thread-Index: AcdL18lCN+h2HRkRQs2TE0ywtkAUegAJKrUw
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028
In-Reply-To: <E1HFIHB-0007EX-AR at stiedprstage1.ietf.org>
From: Larry Masinter <masinter at gmail.com>
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 02ec665d00de228c50c93ed6b5e4fc1a
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 20:38:12 -0500
Cc: dmcw at dataconnection.com
Subject: RE: Last Call: draft-mcwalter-uri-mib (Uniform Resource Identifier
	(URI) MIB) to Proposed Standard 
X-BeenThere: ietf at ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: LMM at acm.org
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>,
	<mailto:ietf-request at ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf at ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request at ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>,
	<mailto:ietf-request at ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: ietf-bounces at ietf.org

 RFC 3986 contains a (brief) description of security considerations
for agents that produce or receive and interpret URIs. I would expect
this document to at the very least reference those security considerations
more explicitly, and at best to analyze how they apply in particular
to URIs used within SNMP.

It's not clear whether it makes sense for SNMP URIs to contain,
for example, 'data:' URIs or 'urn:' or any of a number of schemes,
and I would expect some discussion about the applicability of
URIs within a SNMP context.

URIs are defined as a sequence of characters, not a sequence of
octets. The mapping should be explicit (e.g., 'use US-ASCII') and not
implicit.

In practice, many systems allow and produce IRIs (RFC 3987)
and not URIs, to allow for accents and non-roman scripts. I wonder
if it would be more appropriate to define the MIB value as an IRI
encoded in UTF-8, for example.

Larry




> -----Original Message-----
> From: The IESG [mailto:iesg-secretary at ietf.org] 
> Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 3:02 PM
> To: IETF-Announce
> Cc: uri-review at ietf.org; uri at w3.org
> Subject: Last Call: draft-mcwalter-uri-mib (Uniform Resource 
> Identifier (URI) MIB) to Proposed Standard 
> 
> The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter 
> to consider
> the following document:
> 
> - 'Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) MIB '
>    <draft-mcwalter-uri-mib-02.txt> as a Proposed Standard
> 
> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
> final comments on this action.  Please send substantive 
> comments to the
> ietf at ietf.org mailing lists by 2007-03-08. Exceptionally, 
> comments may be sent to iesg at ietf.org instead. In either case, please 
> retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
> 
> The file can be obtained via
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-mcwalter-uri-mib-02.txt
> 
> 
> IESG discussion can be tracked via
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=vie
w_id&dTag=15468&rfc_flag=0
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> IETF-Announce mailing lis	for <ietf at ietf.org>; Thu, 08 Feb 2007 20:03:51 -0800 (PST)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta;
	h=received:reply-to:to:cc:references:subject:date:message-id:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-mailer:thread-index:x-mimeole:in-reply-to:from;
	b=r6IWrxUy2gcU1MM+xBo7Xzi8XKtDxPEgx4xtgFUbHPQut7ctt97MNn6xBfFMYYLomvYBLwKmYYYE0B7bpj80Wzl/gr6SjcimT6qrd9IEZq80e4Loa5ksIdenkWP+BEav0oFN21rfquUynqaX7bR2xFiMt4gfaOU92QtRDb0hCjQ=
Received: by 10.70.111.2 with SMTP id j2mr16334636wxc.1170993831886;
	Thu, 08 Feb 2007 20:03:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from masinterlap06 ( [24.6.159.62])
	by mx.google.com with ESMTP id i18sm5022413wxd.2007.02.08.20.03.49;
	Thu, 08 Feb 2007 20:03:50 -0800 (PST)
To: <ietf at ietf.org>
References: <E1HFIHB-0007EX-AR at stiedprstage1.ietf.org>
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 20:03:47 -0800
Message-ID: <000c01c74bff$4da65ac0$49552099 at adobenet.global.adobe.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
Thread-Index: AcdL18lCN+h2HRkRQs2TE0ywtkAUegAJKrUw
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028
In-Reply-To: <E1HFIHB-0007EX-AR at stiedprstage1.ietf.org>
From: Larry Masinter <masinter at gmail.com>
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 02ec665d00de228c50c93ed6b5e4fc1a
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 20:38:12 -0500
Cc: dmcw at dataconnection.com
Subject: RE: Last Call: draft-mcwalter-uri-mib (Uniform Resource Identifier
	(URI) MIB) to Proposed Standard 
X-BeenThere: ietf at ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: LMM at acm.org
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>,
	<mailto:ietf-request at ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf at ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request at ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>,
	<mailto:ietf-request at ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: ietf-bounces at ietf.org

 RFC 3986 contains a (brief) description of security considerations
for agents that produce or receive and interpret URIs. I would expect
this document to at the very least reference those security considerations
more explicitly, and at best to analyze how they apply in particular
to URIs used within SNMP.

It's not clear whether it makes sense for SNMP URIs to contain,
for example, 'data:' URIs or 'urn:' or any of a number of schemes,
and I would expect some discussion about the applicability of
URIs within a SNMP context.

URIs are defined as a sequence of characters, not a sequence of
octets. The mapping should be explicit (e.g., 'use US-ASCII') and not
implicit.

In practice, many systems allow and produce IRIs (RFC 3987)
and not URIs, to allow for accents and non-roman scripts. I wonder
if it would be more appropriate to define the MIB value as an IRI
encoded in UTF-8, for example.

Larry




> -----Original Message-----
> From: The IESG [mailto:iesg-secretary at ietf.org] 
> Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 3:02 PM
> To: IETF-Announce
> Cc: uri-review at ietf.org; uri at w3.org
> Subject: Last Call: draft-mcwalter-uri-mib (Uniform Resource 
> Identifier (URI) MIB) to Proposed Standard 
> 
> The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter 
> to consider
> the following document:
> 
> - 'Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) MIB '
>    <draft-mcwalter-uri-mib-02.txt> as a Proposed Standard
> 
> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
> final comments on this action.  Please send substantive 
> comments to the
> ietf at ietf.org mailing lists by 2007-03-08. Exceptionally, 
> comments may be sent to iesg at ietf.org instead. In either case, please 
> retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
> 
> The file can be obtained via
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-mcwalter-uri-mib-02.txt
> 
> 
> IESG discussion can be tracked via
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=vie
w_id&dTag=15468&rfc_flag=0
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> IETF-Announce mailing lisFrom ietf-bounces at ietf.org Wed Feb 14 20:43:14 2007
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
	id 1HHVaK-0006LV-Q5; Wed, 14 Feb 2007 20:38:56 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HGYF7-0008SO-G4
	for ietf at ietf.org; Mon, 12 Feb 2007 05:17:05 -0500
Received: from odin2.bull.net ([129.184.85.11])
	by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HGYF2-0007Sa-IG
	for ietf at ietf.org; Mon, 12 Feb 2007 05:17:05 -0500
Received: from MSGA-001.frcl.bull.fr (msga-001.frcl.bull.fr [129.184.87.31])
	by odin2.bull.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA44778;
	Mon, 12 Feb 2007 11:20:32 +0100
Received: from frcls4013 ([129.182.108.120])
	by MSGA-001.frcl.bull.fr (Lotus Domino Release 5.0.11)
	with SMTP id 2007021211163059:163278 ;
	Mon, 12 Feb 2007 11:16:30 +0100 
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 11:16:28 +0100
From: "Denis Pinkas" <denis.pinkas at bull.net>
To: "Blake Ramsdell" <blake at sendmail.com>
X-mailer: Foxmail 5.0 [-fr-]
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-MIMETrack: Itemize by SMTP Server on MSGA-001/FR/BULL(Release 5.0.11 |July
	24, 2002) at 12/02/2007 11:16:30,
	Serialize by Router on MSGA-001/FR/BULL(Release 5.0.11  |July 24,
	2002) at 12/02/2007 11:16:33,
	Serialize complete at 12/02/2007 11:16:33
Message-ID: <OF528B8AD1.8F8F737D-ONC1257280.00387173 at frcl.bull.fr>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 944ecb6e61f753561f559a497458fb4f
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 20:38:17 -0500
Cc: "turners at ieca.com" <turners at ieca.com>, Sam Hartman <hartmans at mit.edu>,
	"ietf at ietf.org" <ietf at ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-smime-cms-mult-sign
	(CryptographicMessageSyntax(CMS) MultipleSignerClarification)
	to Proposed Standard
X-BeenThere: ietf at ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>,
	<mailto:ietf-request at ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf at ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request at ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>,
	<mailto:ietf-request at ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: ietf-bounces at ietf.org


The only person who has really engaged the conversation during the last call period 
was the draft editor, i.e. Russ Housley (who also happens to be a Security Area Director, 
but in this case he cannot play this role).

So it is "one" against "one" and Sam is now the single Security Area Director allowed to make a decision. 

In general the activity on this mailing list is rather low. 
Silence on the mailing list is rather difficult to interpret. 
I do not agree with the interpretation Blake made of this silence: it like making the dead peole talk.

I cannot understand why Russ is not wishing to try to find a compromise.

In the current situation, I believe it t would be fair to have a straw poll on the mailing list 
and raise the two topics separately. I do not expect many responses.

If you agree, I can draft the text of the two questions and propose it to "you" (i.e. Sam and the co-chairs).

Denis

>OK, let me back up and explain the events as I see them and try to 
>clarify. And I am certainly welcome to any comments or criticism about 
>what my role is or how I should proceed with this.
>
>* My job as WG chair is to make sure that the editor (Russ) has created 
>a draft that incorporates what we consider to be the rough consensus of 
>the working group.
>
>* You had some comments on this draft. Some of your comments were 
>incorporated. Some of your comments had zero support from the WG members 
>on the working group mailing list. Clarifications welcome as to exactly 
>who else supported these comments.
>
>* WG last call closed over a month after your unincorporated comments 
>were made, which allowed plenty of time for anyone to come forward to 
>support your position or for any interested parties to discuss them.
>
>* Because of this lack of interest from a	for <ietf at ietf.org>; Thu, 08 Feb 2007 20:03:51 -0800 (PST)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta;
	h=received:reply-to:to:cc:references:subject:date:message-id:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-mailer:thread-index:x-mimeole:in-reply-to:from;
	b=r6IWrxUy2gcU1MM+xBo7Xzi8XKtDxPEgx4xtgFUbHPQut7ctt97MNn6xBfFMYYLomvYBLwKmYYYE0B7bpj80Wzl/gr6SjcimT6qrd9IEZq80e4Loa5ksIdenkWP+BEav0oFN21rfquUynqaX7bR2xFiMt4gfaOU92QtRDb0hCjQ=
Received: by 10.70.111.2 with SMTP id j2mr16334636wxc.1170993831886;
	Thu, 08 Feb 2007 20:03:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from masinterlap06 ( [24.6.159.62])
	by mx.google.com with ESMTP id i18sm5022413wxd.2007.02.08.20.03.49;
	Thu, 08 Feb 2007 20:03:50 -0800 (PST)
To: <ietf at ietf.org>
References: <E1HFIHB-0007EX-AR at stiedprstage1.ietf.org>
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 20:03:47 -0800
Message-ID: <000c01c74bff$4da65ac0$49552099 at adobenet.global.adobe.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
Thread-Index: AcdL18lCN+h2HRkRQs2TE0ywtkAUegAJKrUw
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028
In-Reply-To: <E1HFIHB-0007EX-AR at stiedprstage1.ietf.org>
From: Larry Masinter <masinter at gmail.com>
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 02ec665d00de228c50c93ed6b5e4fc1a
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 20:38:12 -0500
Cc: dmcw at dataconnection.com
Subject: RE: Last Call: draft-mcwalter-uri-mib (Uniform Resource Identifier
	(URI) MIB) to Proposed Standard 
X-BeenThere: ietf at ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: LMM at acm.org
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>,
	<mailto:ietf-request at ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf at ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request at ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>,
	<mailto:ietf-request at ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: ietf-bounces at ietf.org

 RFC 3986 contains a (brief) description of security considerations
for agents that produce or receive and interpret URIs. I would expect
this document to at the very least reference those security considerations
more explicitly, and at best to analyze how they apply in particular
to URIs used within SNMP.

It's not clear whether it makes sense for SNMP URIs to contain,
for example, 'data:' URIs or 'urn:' or any of a number of schemes,
and I would expect some discussion about the applicability of
URIs within a SNMP context.

URIs are defined as a sequence of characters, not a sequence of
octets. The mapping should be explicit (e.g., 'use US-ASCII') and not
implicit.

In practice, many systems allow and produce IRIs (RFC 3987)
and not URIs, to allow for accents and non-roman scripts. I wonder
if it would be more appropriate to define the MIB value as an IRI
encoded in UTF-8, for example.

Larry




> -----Original Message-----
> From: The IESG [mailto:iesg-secretary at ietf.org] 
> Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 3:02 PM
> To: IETF-Announce
> Cc: uri-review at ietf.org; uri at w3.org
> Subject: Last Call: draft-mcwalter-uri-mib (Uniform Resource 
> Identifier (URI) MIB) to Proposed Standard 
> 
> The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter 
> to consider
> the following document:
> 
> - 'Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) MIB '
>    <draft-mcwalter-uri-mib-02.txt> as a Proposed Standard
> 
> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
> final comments on this action.  Please send substantive 
> comments to the
> ietf at ietf.org mailing lists by 2007-03-08. Exceptionally, 
> comments may be sent to iesg at ietf.org instead. In either case, please 
> retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
> 
> The file can be obtained via
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-mcwalter-uri-mib-02.txt
> 
> 
> IESG discussion can be tracked via
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=vie
w_id&dTag=15468&rfc_flag=0
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> IETF-Announce mailing list
> IETF-Announce at ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.

Note: Messages sent to this list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.