From nobody Mon Aug 19 14:48:15 2019 Return-Path: X-Original-To: trans@ietf.org Delivered-To: trans@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7C24120048; Mon, 19 Aug 2019 14:48:04 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: Adam Roach via Datatracker To: "The IESG" Cc: draft-ietf-trans-rfc6962-bis@ietf.org, Paul Wouters , trans-chairs@ietf.org, paul@nohats.ca, trans@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.100.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Adam Roach Message-ID: <156625128474.19813.7095178998455742704.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2019 14:48:04 -0700 Archived-At: Subject: [Trans] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-trans-rfc6962-bis-32: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: trans@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 List-Id: Public Notary Transparency working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2019 21:48:05 -0000 Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-trans-rfc6962-bis-32: No Objection 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-trans-rfc6962-bis/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Based on the discussion at IETF 105, and on the discussion on the ART mailing list, it appears that there is at least weak support for allowing a narrow carve out to BCP 190 regarding provisioned directory prefixes in URLs. I'm therefore clearing my DISCUSS in advance of an anticipated update to BCP 190 to reflect this carve out. The initial DISCUSS is retained below for historical purposes. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks to everyone who worked on updating this protocol to reflect experience gathered from the initial CT protocol. I have one blocking comment, and a small number of editorial suggestions. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- §5: > Clients are configured with a base URL for a log and construct URLs > for requests by appending suffixes to this base URL. This structure > places some degree of restriction on how log operators can deploy > these services, as noted in [RFC7320]. However, operational > experience with version 1 of this protocol has not indicated that > these restrictions are a problem in practice. The synthesis of URLs by a protocol in this fashion is prohibited by BCP 190: Scheme definitions define the presence, format, and semantics of a path component in URIs; all other specifications MUST NOT constrain, or define the structure or the semantics for any path component. Unless the intention of this document is to update BCP 190 to change this normative requirement, we can't publish it in its current form. Note that doing so would require a change of venue, as updates to BCP 190 would not be covered by the current TRANS charter. Please see BCP 190 section 3 for alternate approaches. All three approaches could be made to work for CT, and I would be happy to explain how to do so if clarification is desired. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- §1.1: > The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", > "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this > document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. Consider using the boilerplate from RFC 8174. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- §1.3: > This document revises and obsoletes the experimental CT 1.0 [RFC6962] > protocol, drawing on insights gained from CT 1.0 deployments and on > feedback from the community. Given that *this* document is also experimental, it seems a bit odd to call out RFC 6962 as experimental. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- §2.1.1: > We have established a registry of acceptable hash algorithms (see The use of first person here is awkward. Consider: "This document establishes..." --------------------------------------------------------------------------- §10.2: > | 0x01 - | Unassigned | | Specification | > | 0xDF | | | Required and | > | | | | Expert Review | The policy being cited here is confusing. It is unclear whether the intention is that values can be registered under both §4.5 and §4.6 of RFC 8126. I suspect the intention here is the policy specified in RFC 8126 §4.6 only, without reference to the policy in §4.5. If so, please use the formal name "Specification Required." --------------------------------------------------------------------------- §10.4: > | 0x0008 - | Unassigned | Specification Required and | > | 0xDFFF | | Expert Review | Same comment as above. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- §10.5: > | 0x0000 - | Unassigned | n/a | Specification Required and | > | 0xDFFF | | | Expert Review | Same comment as above. From nobody Tue Aug 20 00:01:01 2019 Return-Path: X-Original-To: trans@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: trans@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 117A4120887 for ; Tue, 20 Aug 2019 00:01:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.998 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com 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 vlcBi5FIWSB9 for ; Tue, 20 Aug 2019 00:00:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pf1-x42c.google.com (mail-pf1-x42c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::42c]) (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 AAEFB12087A for ; Tue, 20 Aug 2019 00:00:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pf1-x42c.google.com with SMTP id b24so2805730pfp.1 for ; Tue, 20 Aug 2019 00:00:57 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:references:to:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=IjI6NMK/bYVq6A2sy5erSRHeylmBoZaoR9AscXMMzxU=; b=JMunHQGLjM7Lxiu4VklmeepUhkdmV82OjJYvF+SXzQdtshnzfJxHun3Uslz9dY0hzF /qp0Whqps+3qYixQo0gRNG/Dq8GZM7QNASAWy6it1xntMqb4XBIvDtCH4hSblvegk2ud nZ3j2gRTwykYN9q5fm7IFe78J8jl8bhtN0lbC5t6mIURYTNvhcBSr2O9lzlbs0E40Jgp mP5aZk7vM2UA10zzb8Sr6cPKo5AALyJwSP6DUVQe2U5aYn26aPKBXTYQ/9ZmXzem9fWI xHo89hbIpk6WC3qASc4IRN+k/y13H46kysNMWsv1WPBseHgER7QRAJZxD4l9fD/IIC4f jz8w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:references:to:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=IjI6NMK/bYVq6A2sy5erSRHeylmBoZaoR9AscXMMzxU=; b=QCIkL8L1PsjK9ZzzYdrCfvpB5In5FdGZrKYNpW8574rxgtbwtkHyA+c2BY8JI6s9Yx 0k1+N1HPQUbeQekY8qfVqxVYRnrfFVdECeu9EuQGdGJ/9yb9LUIfXX9ZgvgFIXqntx2Z Zzhups1jRIFf+kYk5faFHi+YLDMEwwGvD8AsFpVSEr+gsgfZOtbTDdL6bIOwP+QTiDG9 eoqdTfBZFSQTb7iFVwX1EaoKCqR9zrEh/I0hV3EjyV1FfCKQ1ZT6RyzgCL9QHIybSLoW bTEaYm9Tx3hVHH2pnYT1mAwt7SUDB1wuGaWP+cTE9xUC0HzQXEsUe4vlwRxHBfzKl3KW Sqkw== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWTY/tpwAau0msaR2l2M/QIA+54yD4xjgK62cDh/L3lCroS2atX HIForwnGH183fLM6guwO/pND7t0V X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyXR4G8zDO5ohQRyytXR5+D4sQwEX7APOxbODDCQGBof9q+BMTEMPg2n9P6su8uwDRpnhX9vw== X-Received: by 2002:a65:458d:: with SMTP id o13mr22977520pgq.34.1566284456554; Tue, 20 Aug 2019 00:00:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from aspen.local (63-140-73-7-rb1.jnu.dsl.dynamic.acsalaska.net. [63.140.73.7]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id f72sm15396680pjg.10.2019.08.20.00.00.55 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 20 Aug 2019 00:00:55 -0700 (PDT) References: <3000e948-14e6-80d2-e8e6-766d309c361c@nostrum.com> To: "trans@ietf.org" From: Melinda Shore X-Forwarded-Message-Id: <3000e948-14e6-80d2-e8e6-766d309c361c@nostrum.com> Message-ID: <8d7a03db-664b-9370-eb15-ea2275c6a140@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2019 23:00:53 -0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <3000e948-14e6-80d2-e8e6-766d309c361c@nostrum.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Archived-At: Subject: [Trans] Fwd: [art] Call for Consensus: Re: On BCP 190 X-BeenThere: trans@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Public Notary Transparency working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2019 07:01:00 -0000 Hi, all: I'm still digging out from having been away for several weeks, plus fires to put out at $dayjob, but I'd like to call your attention to a call for consensus on the art (application area) mailing list on BCP 190. The original discussion was driven by Adam's DISCUSS on 6962-bis, and interested parties really ought to weigh in on this. Melinda -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [art] Call for Consensus: Re: On BCP 190 Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2019 15:15:14 -0500 From: Adam Roach To: Mark Nottingham , Jacob Hoffman-Andrews CC: ART Area , Devon O'Brien For the purposes of clearing my discuss, I intend to read the responses to Mark's message below as a reflection of consensus from the community. If you have thoughts on the topic, please weigh in on the ART-area mailing list no later than Friday, August 16th. People who have participated in the discussion in TRANS are very much welcome to re-express their opinions in this thread. I'm also hoping that we get some input from other participants -- even if it's something as simple as "this sounds good to me" -- to make sure all relevant perspectives are taken into account. Thanks! /a On 8/2/19 1:55 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote: > It sounds like you (collectively) want an exception in BCP190 still, correct? > > If so, I think we just need to craft some language about that for inclusion in the spec; I'd imagine it need only be a sentence or two about it. Then the AD(s) need to convince themselves that it reflects consensus. > > The underlying issue is the text in 2.3 of BCP190; I think the emerging consensus is that it's too strict, in that it can be read to preclude using a prefix approach with a MUST NOT, when in fact the potential harm to other applications / the Web overall is pretty small. > > Does anyone disagree with that? > > Cheers, > > >> On 31 Jul 2019, at 2:10 pm, Jacob Hoffman-Andrews wrote: >> >> On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 11:26 PM Larry Masinter wrote: >> The use of / in the path of URLs was supposed to >> >> be restricted to hierarchical data, and yet CT doesn’t >> do that. >> >> http://masinter.blogspot.com/2019/05/on-nature-of-hierarchical-urls.html >> >> >> CT and all prefix-using APIs do that, with a single level hierarchy. The domain owner specifies a prefix, ending with a "/". All of the URLs that are part of the API follow that prefix - they are subordinate in the hierarchy. >> >> Coming back to the main point: What remains in order to find consensus on this issue? >> >> Thanks, >> Jacob > -- > Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/ > > _______________________________________________ > art mailing list > art@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/art _______________________________________________ art mailing list art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/art From nobody Tue Aug 20 00:32:56 2019 Return-Path: X-Original-To: trans@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: trans@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F043E1208D4 for ; Tue, 20 Aug 2019 00:32:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.998 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com 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 YMZPA0NV6dUV for ; Tue, 20 Aug 2019 00:32:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pf1-x42c.google.com (mail-pf1-x42c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::42c]) (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 21E4812013A for ; Tue, 20 Aug 2019 00:32:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pf1-x42c.google.com with SMTP id o70so2850697pfg.5 for ; Tue, 20 Aug 2019 00:32:49 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:references:to:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=clr4h2yUsSaxtUWIRGWsW0n6RPVl82NGk9rzYIAeL0k=; b=MtKATmEGXbb4Z9gb25RHohxUJnxB9wzyGTXzQL++39r9kIgnJYAPFmxF48uc230esL noaVidzhNdKS8GlBlT05foOFZ9HVEF3dRPYyYdlLIhJVp+QGrhp4x2Cu/NsElEIY6Iqc ncgt6CCEjGlYJVGCdqbYYJWPgmZTpdTvQjA3SQAtovvX3WJ/UaQnd4hVVPvFYBG6g6oj dgUsp873mIl//yJb1VIyUtfYNp5nT4a85b/c5OfcnhLeZaJNe/ZJ1CX3MSsR9gbW2ydy 9P6O9+7l/2KX0Ea/7/KzBv1bxziJSZ2iNv2tbT4PR3PLQbc8rP+9TOIh+aZE7woJuvpo sl3w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:references:to:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=clr4h2yUsSaxtUWIRGWsW0n6RPVl82NGk9rzYIAeL0k=; b=WysYfrXXJg2xsidm+IEaIOn0FxwKwBzv7Km+z5PdZGyKEACFo6AkHrizhNZzfCt7Db tdkQFsYBxS8wGGbxFOPc8whvQ2qcd+i/fmpsum6LkWzwt+4MkieRMwKS1JKAR32y1bNt Fkt/Q6VWx8xUqcZ6xoBcR/OpXHqiNaNG+qO4G3zaXISoC96NiDX9pxeLJ5U4BpwEk4ZN slpsmeL8cXIuORHGTBmWrNWaR6bmJMfjXGAx+HwcU9aFZ9JYUGGfgwjikBiXewXzWFoT P4o2ulUiDYSSrT0LNtcZy7SMm3rKNydjWDy0zvo7k8jrUZm8KIahqTukxGFRaJqra4Vf 5J/A== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXyppXG4/OumVIfN0hzT5Hv/yrlzv0w5D0Fhj6A1n9X3mdk8B9v 8C5cUT8OAmgeTzLzSm/DuNrd8Rli X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxjT0Ep/WpKU07Ok2HVlZcQ6nFyCCYj/3uGfDxwJIWzrKR4ExJC6VRze34xBhUoNSgE8cOlpw== X-Received: by 2002:a63:f907:: with SMTP id h7mr17281567pgi.418.1566286368138; Tue, 20 Aug 2019 00:32:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from aspen.local (63-140-73-7-rb1.jnu.dsl.dynamic.acsalaska.net. [63.140.73.7]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 131sm16126314pge.37.2019.08.20.00.32.47 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 20 Aug 2019 00:32:47 -0700 (PDT) References: <156628608617.453.9334158994385912480@ietfa.amsl.com> To: "trans@ietf.org" From: Melinda Shore X-Forwarded-Message-Id: <156628608617.453.9334158994385912480@ietfa.amsl.com> Message-ID: <05bdf875-4b69-c181-77e9-42e79cbc8eff@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2019 23:32:46 -0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <156628608617.453.9334158994385912480@ietfa.amsl.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Subject: [Trans] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-nottingham-rfc7320bis-00.txt X-BeenThere: trans@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Public Notary Transparency working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2019 07:32:52 -0000 Mark just posted -bis draft for a proposed updating of BCP 190. Please review this with a particular eye towards how it might impact 6962-bis. Thanks, Melinda -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: I-D Action: draft-nottingham-rfc7320bis-00.txt Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2019 00:28:06 -0700 From: internet-drafts@ietf.org Reply-To: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. Title : URI Design and Ownership Author : Mark Nottingham Filename : draft-nottingham-rfc7320bis-00.txt Pages : 9 Date : 2019-08-20 Abstract: Section 1.1.1 of RFC 3986 defines URI syntax as "a federated and extensible naming system wherein each scheme's specification may further restrict the syntax and semantics of identifiers using that scheme." In other words, the structure of a URI is defined by its scheme. While it is common for schemes to further delegate their substructure to the URI's owner, publishing independent standards that mandate particular forms of URI substructure is inappropriate, because that essentially usurps ownership. This document further describes this problematic practice and provides some acceptable alternatives for use in standards. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-nottingham-rfc7320bis/ There are also htmlized versions available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-rfc7320bis-00 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-nottingham-rfc7320bis-00 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ _______________________________________________ I-D-Announce mailing list I-D-Announce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt From nobody Wed Aug 28 07:29:07 2019 Return-Path: X-Original-To: trans@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: trans@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAE9512007A for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2019 07:29:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.998 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com 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 d626KfClpPP6 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2019 07:29:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pg1-x52a.google.com (mail-pg1-x52a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::52a]) (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 1DDF9120043 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2019 07:29:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pg1-x52a.google.com with SMTP id d1so1577993pgp.4 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2019 07:29:04 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:references:to:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-language; bh=lY0sA/zEsOZ3myO/UBBDA3PSRdHKTl6S8RKWxGNfavU=; b=Qj7p0w2HPEuzzmyy6KEa5cvNJzGqK4GWKsf/OOj2vENzy5puxnhuv2tAjfWwVJ5Jx7 HqDh4XdHP/0L8chHJT53ORDWRcgiKSR590xDixHXNecYMFz/fNHKKoqyHL1UkZS75GzI uBkFlJr19Hn3K4tlgkEWQOnUJABEezjuYvUyRi0pFr6wiolI4/Aj3b4P/H+iw1qQVGwQ oqnCjr+6BhXAUcjnikjuStbwRph1I4P4839d4tJC93/tiFKNx3ETlQrj+SPr5fDHtZaV 04HP4PJFj1CSAW2F+CUfmX8tRygjT1ybrFW1pVuJGZK4k3MckmcLHW5VUNY0tTYhdLjc LRFw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:references:to:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language; bh=lY0sA/zEsOZ3myO/UBBDA3PSRdHKTl6S8RKWxGNfavU=; b=WGI86VGWYKkNYbcByc+Y5tfjQjPeryD4tUs75hHSlZxp+w35akhumtarDZD/k7VRkP PdR11B2bbsErlqbywWOC4hQUk1USXCcn2bt9EPw+GKzTSfIGO+DvAEqPCBaPgXWqhDe3 3BGxf+cbKEnHNYtDEopKyma04alUov02rH/cAPgsoSEwMuPPsTwGfRHpko3KKTz6JUyR nd9wDZhzp+9vnYRAlx/kTIptb568pSRiabqWcal1P97RvmJkOFG/zYWKErCF+Rp/plhh vKJRRd/BekwDW2SBZYzuiKJWJRXoSjnIqkZKc3A6uQYlvbwnFY9DE/xNkqFUrs9FO9B8 NK4A== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWXwAQgpWfLMI0hC2HCopOs8LDJb0azqD3QbnG4nRgX+YPA1x/r D89DzNbNI89lYc8oubXm3bqtLziS X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzzx24BD48M9ZIwstCI7vuGhO4BRwtscaL3SFIOmVRlCYYf41GjpmnPRhhLclkQ4iHtxbGc4A== X-Received: by 2002:a63:d315:: with SMTP id b21mr3787005pgg.326.1567002542814; Wed, 28 Aug 2019 07:29:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Melindas-MacBook-Pro.local (63-140-65-24.dynamic.lte.acsalaska.net. [63.140.65.24]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id t4sm4673855pfd.109.2019.08.28.07.29.00 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 28 Aug 2019 07:29:01 -0700 (PDT) References: <6CACB9C1-265A-450E-A5CF-A47F38682E6B@mnot.net> To: "trans@ietf.org" From: Melinda Shore X-Forwarded-Message-Id: <6CACB9C1-265A-450E-A5CF-A47F38682E6B@mnot.net> Message-ID: Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2019 06:28:59 -0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <6CACB9C1-265A-450E-A5CF-A47F38682E6B@mnot.net> Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------D110A07996837016568680AC" Content-Language: en-US Archived-At: Subject: [Trans] Fwd: [art] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-rfc7320bis-01.txt X-BeenThere: trans@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Public Notary Transparency working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2019 14:29:06 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------D110A07996837016568680AC Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit FYI. Please review with an eye towards whether or not this works with respect to 6962-bis. Melinda -------- Forwarded Message -------- From: Mark Nottingham Message-Id: <6CACB9C1-265A-450E-A5CF-A47F38682E6B@mnot.net> References: <156685932063.2566.4065147273562437244.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> To: ART Area Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2019 10:45:37 +1000 FYI; this is a proposed revision of RFC7320 / BCP190, as discussed. -00 was a copy of 7320; -01 proposes the revision (so the diff is probably a good place to start). Cheers, > Begin forwarded message: > > *From: *internet-drafts@ietf.org > *Subject: **New Version Notification for > draft-nottingham-rfc7320bis-01.txt* > *Date: *27 August 2019 at 8:42:00 am AEST > *To: *"Mark Nottingham" > > > > A new version of I-D, draft-nottingham-rfc7320bis-01.txt > has been successfully submitted by Mark Nottingham and posted to the > IETF repository. > > Name:draft-nottingham-rfc7320bis > Revision:01 > Title:URI Design and Ownership > Document date:2019-08-27 > Group:Individual Submission > Pages:10 > URL: >            https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-nottingham-rfc7320bis-01.txt > Status: >         https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-nottingham-rfc7320bis/ > Htmlized:       https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-rfc7320bis-01 > Htmlized: >       https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-nottingham-rfc7320bis > Diff: >           https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-nottingham-rfc7320bis-01 > > Abstract: >   Section 1.1.1 of RFC 3986 defines URI syntax as "a federated and >   extensible naming system wherein each scheme's specification may >   further restrict the syntax and semantics of identifiers using that >   scheme."  In other words, the structure of a URI is defined by its >   scheme.  While it is common for schemes to further delegate their >   substructure to the URI's owner, publishing independent standards >   that mandate particular forms of substructure in URIs is often >   problematic. > >   This document provides guidance on the specification of URI >   substructure in standards. > > > > > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of > submission > until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org > . > > The IETF Secretariat > -- Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/ --------------D110A07996837016568680AC Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; name="Attached Message Part" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Attached Message Part" _______________________________________________ art mailing list art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/art --------------D110A07996837016568680AC-- From nobody Fri Aug 30 14:54:31 2019 Return-Path: X-Original-To: trans@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: trans@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 912951207FC for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2019 14:54:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=comodoca.onmicrosoft.com 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 eiwS2rJRerQJ for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2019 14:54:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from NAM01-SN1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-eopbgr820083.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.107.82.83]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CE8D8120108 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2019 14:54:25 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=VyfP11v6lOWuQTHlPTK0olLnITyBvfql15Xh+BR2lW6pPDHSBS/MI5Xx5melEeTNMaXzL1ZmfvMWG1ckoYqSn6rP7TaBxpzTR1iS6+t0BtiRMtx5LD0d6ST4zvnIBU+W0qqaUemqwAhlCHOuWmRnV9vDdKi9ILyMeLrtZqJPWrQAvwtRt4h7unWDBZtM3yKm9sCjcgDf2P2vnX7y9v+O0sh+ap7SRPoT0a/h6U2/tYa7w324M8DduEcdajenyc/6WINKZhLY7YTn3Rz4QdjusJj2q9+D1Pa8LtGqt8aX07o4e6du0bnJHrqjqiB+GadcXUWD9jLIj2kP6rRsTraltA== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=Hk8JnRkqnMFofu6hiYWANSSXSAQ18V8fwdCCMWxitfk=; b=hMhuaCslAjldUTO39S/mp8cDgfuZUtHQn5cXw6e5ydOPx8URMtLbr1qIL78RZdPtYbXwIJ1SB0T+21z6jE+u5/5nOZZY6ZHnSCjefdCd68/Sah0maU3SE+alYEUSyjrnzDsAwf3GNdfemFG8MdgbE3XPowOMQPpPY6+6rYVskblHRRsaDDRSp3ucweUcFuX66p00xUcVFbFKab3b1KJD4C8QWPS8LETZtyT1tui1h6s+PykaEyccdEA5L6ZAh87MIGk3I25TAi/3J2agALiidd2tceE++3D57L0+JZyHpMKIm7XQXjG03chXipZGmFC9WRZ5xHcyNTlMrv97Lgemig== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=sectigo.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=sectigo.com; dkim=pass header.d=sectigo.com; arc=none DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comodoca.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-comodoca-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=Hk8JnRkqnMFofu6hiYWANSSXSAQ18V8fwdCCMWxitfk=; b=avOZixA2tRisXFDxSpwjsMe19PaSZgI8Fyp7l+vU5+6x09fmN1nrdWzTojTtwUZ0VosDbrrVGUrZTTw3oGSm3M1jsbyp5S9WLVnozufM4aInpr9LbnQPz2KugZbwaD06CFH/QLrv++620lSnfjmwinELBPBCJjpQT/315ZW1WJE= Received: from MN2PR17MB3166.namprd17.prod.outlook.com (10.255.181.83) by MN2PR17MB3022.namprd17.prod.outlook.com (20.178.245.153) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2199.21; Fri, 30 Aug 2019 21:54:20 +0000 Received: from MN2PR17MB3166.namprd17.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::7d65:c479:621f:5cf]) by MN2PR17MB3166.namprd17.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::7d65:c479:621f:5cf%5]) with mapi id 15.20.2199.021; Fri, 30 Aug 2019 21:54:20 +0000 From: Rob Stradling To: Melinda Shore , "trans@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [Trans] Fwd: [art] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-rfc7320bis-01.txt Thread-Index: AQHVXTn5hTENtIYQ30eRmzVcAvnyfacQn2iAgAOhD4A= Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2019 21:54:20 +0000 Message-ID: References: <6CACB9C1-265A-450E-A5CF-A47F38682E6B@mnot.net> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-clientproxiedby: BL0PR02CA0039.namprd02.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:207:3d::16) To MN2PR17MB3166.namprd17.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:208:154::19) authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=rob@sectigo.com; x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1 x-originating-ip: [51.6.133.142] x-ms-publictraffictype: Email x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 011c3e39-bf23-43e1-2e6a-08d72d949c8c x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390118)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(4534185)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(5600166)(711020)(4605104)(1401327)(2017052603328)(7193020); SRVR:MN2PR17MB3022; x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: MN2PR17MB3022: x-ms-exchange-purlcount: 9 x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:9508; x-forefront-prvs: 0145758B1D x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(346002)(396003)(136003)(366004)(376002)(39850400004)(189003)(199004)(71200400001)(7736002)(53546011)(66446008)(229853002)(64756008)(36756003)(2420400007)(256004)(2906002)(7110500001)(6436002)(8676002)(8936002)(81166006)(81156014)(305945005)(2501003)(6506007)(66476007)(76176011)(66574012)(14454004)(66556008)(52116002)(102836004)(966005)(2616005)(6306002)(71190400001)(6512007)(26005)(6116002)(99286004)(15650500001)(3846002)(86362001)(478600001)(11346002)(53936002)(386003)(6246003)(446003)(31686004)(5660300002)(66066001)(476003)(486006)(186003)(31696002)(25786009)(110136005)(6486002)(316002)(66946007)(14444005); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:MN2PR17MB3022; H:MN2PR17MB3166.namprd17.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1; received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: sectigo.com does not designate permitted sender hosts) x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1 x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: 6veoaUtuJieWoQhifaFgm0sPaYfDHH2OfjoKC64IDvsy4cWN/UwgQsZ423oPY7p0sb8D7eHOW0ZCg4oX5NdSdJHQSiX14Bg8gTDM3NuVNIc9JkGvAz1aGhH+tXkPHyhjkm/cTBKrVYB78Ul3/d+n5LMLlHeiiv15fzhbtUvukNrO7DzwWs7yALcrAR9Sq9MeuWdpAdVu9vrCkCAKKi+pCwu5v6XDnj//l1geqPDb/rxdDvK8xP2lTs5Hs+6aCkbc1NLJUM8HP31NJlSR19xCuEfTP24JSOAn9PrSWc/0Rfw7zHAP1Pz3beo661xrbTJ7zNeoiRvHSQsEgn1dWQsGoAOxoBI5Kbf41/nppE7LLfykmlAd8x0445QlmE3WkxvS0Pm51yFtJcmO+wSYVyri4GUtuCFeOzC8B+3p3ExeCgo= x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-ID: <5E0DF3DA1B19CB42AFB89B56B0F4F0F0@namprd17.prod.outlook.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: sectigo.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 011c3e39-bf23-43e1-2e6a-08d72d949c8c X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 30 Aug 2019 21:54:20.3685 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 0e9c4894-6caa-465d-9660-4b6968b49fb7 X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: cRdbWN8GVxlPU5kKtzbptuR+F4CZoT7sf2J6IUR0MuMbIBrS17D1Rz428re+LnTOgdNmGNzQe0TM2UxeTi2fSw== X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: MN2PR17MB3022 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Trans] Fwd: [art] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-rfc7320bis-01.txt X-BeenThere: trans@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Public Notary Transparency working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2019 21:54:30 -0000 Hi Melinda. I've read through rfc7320bis-01. I believe it permits the style of URL=20 construction used by RFC6962 and by 6962bis-31 (and previous revisions). Therefore, and given that Adam has cleared his DISCUSS on this matter, I=20 propose to cancel=20 https://github.com/google/certificate-transparency-rfcs/pull/311 and to=20 revert the URL changes that were introduced by 6962bis-32. On 28/08/2019 15:28, Melinda Shore wrote: > FYI. Please review with an eye towards whether or not this works > with respect to 6962-bis. >=20 > Melinda >=20 >=20 > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > From: Mark Nottingham > Message-Id: <6CACB9C1-265A-450E-A5CF-A47F38682E6B@mnot.net> > References: > <156685932063.2566.4065147273562437244.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> > To: ART Area > Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2019 10:45:37 +1000 >=20 >=20 >=20 > FYI; this is a proposed revision of RFC7320 / BCP190, as discussed. >=20 > -00 was a copy of 7320; -01 proposes the revision (so the diff is > probably a good place to start). >=20 > Cheers, >=20 >=20 >=20 >> Begin forwarded message: >> >> *From: *internet-drafts@ietf.org >> *Subject: **New Version Notification for >> draft-nottingham-rfc7320bis-01.txt* >> *Date: *27 August 2019 at 8:42:00 am AEST >> *To: *"Mark Nottingham" > >> >> >> A new version of I-D, draft-nottingham-rfc7320bis-01.txt >> has been successfully submitted by Mark Nottingham and posted to the >> IETF repository. >> >> Name:draft-nottingham-rfc7320bis >> Revision:01 >> Title:URI Design and Ownership >> Document date:2019-08-27 >> Group:Individual Submission >> Pages:10 >> URL: >> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/d= raft-nottingham-rfc7320bis-01.txt >> Status: >> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-nottingh= am-rfc7320bis/ >> Htmlized: =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham= -rfc7320bis-01 >> Htmlized: >> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-nottingha= m-rfc7320bis >> Diff: >> =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft= -nottingham-rfc7320bis-01 >> >> Abstract: >> =A0=A0Section 1.1.1 of RFC 3986 defines URI syntax as "a federated and >> =A0=A0extensible naming system wherein each scheme's specification may >> =A0=A0further restrict the syntax and semantics of identifiers using th= at >> =A0=A0scheme." =A0In other words, the structure of a URI is defined by = its >> =A0=A0scheme. =A0While it is common for schemes to further delegate the= ir >> =A0=A0substructure to the URI's owner, publishing independent standards >> =A0=A0that mandate particular forms of substructure in URIs is often >> =A0=A0problematic. >> >> =A0=A0This document provides guidance on the specification of URI >> =A0=A0substructure in standards. >> >> >> >> >> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of >> submission >> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org >> . >> >> The IETF Secretariat >> >=20 > -- > Mark Nottingham=A0 =A0https://www.mnot.net/ >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Trans mailing list > Trans@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans >=20 --=20 Rob Stradling Senior Research & Development Scientist Email: rob@sectigo.com Bradford, UK Office: +441274024707 Sectigo Limited This message and any files associated with it may contain legally=20 privileged, confidential, or proprietary information. If you are not the=20 intended recipient, you are not permitted to use, copy, or forward it,=20 in whole or in part without the express consent of the sender. Please=20 notify the sender by reply email, disregard the foregoing messages, and=20 delete it immediately. From nobody Fri Aug 30 15:36:53 2019 Return-Path: X-Original-To: trans@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: trans@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8F5C120073 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2019 15:36:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com 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 jp9xa5fViJr1 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2019 15:36:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pf1-x42f.google.com (mail-pf1-x42f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::42f]) (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 6E86312004C for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2019 15:36:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pf1-x42f.google.com with SMTP id 26so3138449pfp.9 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2019 15:36:49 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=78MK24NTilrjNrdKu2K7f+di10qb0q1zz8jG7HsMFNg=; b=puAXxHDhPW0lyX9uA5TDyYjgts8mVu0+PQ3IGnpC57t7gDMx4ucc3fm/ndf5IP+qz5 CQc4sppAOz6pjq80GjhfOnq48dWHMaLXq1zuBaN0lk0E/65oKy3Sj19lWyo8mCNRn00Z eYR8pt0IuiNge1XKS+OfZwKtRi3JtiLHKaP+ZhiToSYSfOYWduo+ZwdGT/MkdkUOQ+OT Wayyd1SzIh7fR1Fqh1M+CEZlYFhgY+756mZ2HEKNKcw3vp5Byniiu7KRpxd8DW7D85Jt /qky0GvwrPMyS+vGZr32NhwVaGDv6Syeiii9FYklsONEjV1u2/msDtVNf6+FcPJDD1LW Nv0w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=78MK24NTilrjNrdKu2K7f+di10qb0q1zz8jG7HsMFNg=; b=JL8XS2n42qlg7GH/GKlBFD2PsYYq+FtnO8qirhlY1fhi7Z7YMLkoKHmZ5PIOMjVWiR xm5oNreKfQ8tBBx5OninuylCS+gMBU7A+niefGtsTkFwEprk0Sno2G+fo0wgG714mzGb Co3LEGGt7mH8nU8iHAuN//u8vUHy4WkQSH9RK6WG0MokQ+wqEUHDeKEaluEgXSTEuzsL LvjWBa8ot9G2ozsNUZESMMJW88p7Ud/QD8hUYwyPT6e+JrRye5KjGGPcGZuZvXNBUTsB NWsnNEJpWL8XUgolqcRuZsYFqT3+O7TKWjZS4bQAfQS542/vabDcAF9plcXKRl1TTogj FF6w== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXke3ysYZi0skxz31sIOMezRi9Res0nWTWthi8Z+xIiOXPW32YI 3mnNTuKG0ps8zJXHVuMuY+m7iyfd X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxe+MpVZskWkmjZ/Lgnf2DUgFNRpZnuBnHTiWCGVbjI4Ihyk0nik8Rd1wzyG1xBe9roQV66WA== X-Received: by 2002:a63:8ac3:: with SMTP id y186mr14782511pgd.13.1567204608447; Fri, 30 Aug 2019 15:36:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from aspen.local (63-140-65-24.dynamic.lte.acsalaska.net. [63.140.65.24]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id p10sm6465360pjr.14.2019.08.30.15.36.47 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 30 Aug 2019 15:36:47 -0700 (PDT) To: Rob Stradling , "trans@ietf.org" References: <6CACB9C1-265A-450E-A5CF-A47F38682E6B@mnot.net> From: Melinda Shore Message-ID: <858c3e44-f7e2-8ebb-5e8c-e46534cf76de@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2019 14:36:45 -0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Trans] Fwd: [art] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-rfc7320bis-01.txt X-BeenThere: trans@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Public Notary Transparency working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2019 22:36:51 -0000 On 8/30/19 1:54 PM, Rob Stradling wrote: > Therefore, and given that Adam has cleared his DISCUSS on this matter, I > propose to cancel > https://github.com/google/certificate-transparency-rfcs/pull/311 and to > revert the URL changes that were introduced by 6962bis-32. Are there any objections/concerns among the cohort? Melinda -- Melinda Shore melinda.shore@gmail.com Software longa, hardware brevis