From nobody Wed Jun 3 07:56:39 2015 Return-Path: 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 DE9591A88BC; Wed, 3 Jun 2015 07:56:36 -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] 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 pb9ZLN2apjnf; Wed, 3 Jun 2015 07:56:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25E7B1A8A45; Wed, 3 Jun 2015 07:56:28 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.0.3.p2 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20150603145628.28281.47062.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2015 07:56:28 -0700 Archived-At: Cc: xmpp@ietf.org Subject: [xmpp] I-D Action: draft-ietf-xmpp-6122bis-23.txt X-BeenThere: xmpp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: XMPP Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2015 14:56:37 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol Working Group of the IETF. Title : Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP): Address Format Author : Peter Saint-Andre Filename : draft-ietf-xmpp-6122bis-23.txt Pages : 25 Date : 2015-06-03 Abstract: This document defines the address format for the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP), including support for code points outside the ASCII range. This document obsoletes RFC 6122. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-xmpp-6122bis/ There's also a htmlized version available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-xmpp-6122bis-23 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-xmpp-6122bis-23 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/ From nobody Wed Jun 3 08:05:50 2015 Return-Path: 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 17D311A8029 for ; Wed, 3 Jun 2015 08:05:48 -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 v_U4RfD_8LSY for ; Wed, 3 Jun 2015 08:05:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ie0-f169.google.com (mail-ie0-f169.google.com [209.85.223.169]) (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 57A751A1BDC for ; Wed, 3 Jun 2015 08:05:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: by ieclw1 with SMTP id lw1so15278023iec.3 for ; Wed, 03 Jun 2015 08:05:41 -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 :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=P4mnUCIQq7fCVzna5DVSN5DAEof4zBrjlae+IwSctTI=; b=flGVQK/8KVMJ+5ChW09K1wvGtvqFLZXLQV9VUly0clNssLBXpIUQzBnt4P96ngxzpv UCuStowAI3Z2/YAMraWHzQb1EexJ8juJbhtvoHnoTtTxxg1gPjZBYhd/4aRXvA6nnxu1 hnLvNk0xZNEja/HoqVXvrb439qzLvYMlwKxUnJOAOBZ6/EdK2CvSvGnwEN2uzA6nJHi7 yrodUAR688bjjCTbdaj5akZmJtLH8aCbNznocbqzUBEMcQ0IvAnpvQW+D+2nrccikgIQ KiWl0sUOGJaafFcHUJV+j9an8A5VPtHnzfb+iolP/TI2P49pUmvltm/sqPtHUQhhHHeN f9uQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQn11AV1pWtqJXxt69RSCQsN54VOxydnZ+vqC64pzWqUKYGnUEFnGLMu2g2Q8wEUwJnpzvkl X-Received: by 10.42.226.8 with SMTP id iu8mr40232823icb.17.1433343941774; Wed, 03 Jun 2015 08:05:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from aither.local ([2601:1:8200:3a60:94e5:8979:e5f8:27c4]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id g1sm14898067iog.4.2015.06.03.08.05.40 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 03 Jun 2015 08:05:40 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <556F17C3.2010801@andyet.net> Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2015 09:05:39 -0600 From: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet 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: xmpp@ietf.org References: <20150603145628.28281.47062.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20150603145628.28281.47062.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [xmpp] I-D Action: draft-ietf-xmpp-6122bis-23.txt X-BeenThere: xmpp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: XMPP Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2015 15:05:48 -0000 One small fix to address Dan Romascanu's Gen-ART review... On 6/3/15 8:56 AM, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote: > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. > This draft is a work item of the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol Working Group of the IETF. > > Title : Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP): Address Format > Author : Peter Saint-Andre > Filename : draft-ietf-xmpp-6122bis-23.txt > Pages : 25 > Date : 2015-06-03 > > Abstract: > This document defines the address format for the Extensible Messaging > and Presence Protocol (XMPP), including support for code points > outside the ASCII range. This document obsoletes RFC 6122. > > > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-xmpp-6122bis/ > > There's also a htmlized version available at: > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-xmpp-6122bis-23 > > A diff from the previous version is available at: > https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-xmpp-6122bis-23 > > > 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/ > > _______________________________________________ > xmpp mailing list > xmpp@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xmpp > From nobody Mon Jun 8 07:35:51 2015 Return-Path: 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 84EAB1A877C; Mon, 8 Jun 2015 06:38:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.1 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_ALL=0.8] 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 Klo0IxYMtWlg; Mon, 8 Jun 2015 06:38:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87E731A8773; Mon, 8 Jun 2015 06:38:52 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Alissa Cooper" To: "The IESG" X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.0.3.p2 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20150608133852.28922.84781.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2015 06:38:52 -0700 Archived-At: X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 08 Jun 2015 07:35:50 -0700 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: [xmpp] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-xmpp-6122bis-23: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: xmpp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: XMPP Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2015 13:38:53 -0000 Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-xmpp-6122bis-23: 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-xmpp-6122bis/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- = Section 6.1 = "Because this document obsoletes RFC 6122, which registered the "Nodeprep" and "Resourceprep" profiles, IANA is requested at the least to mark those profiles as not current (preferably with a pointer to this document)." "At the least" implies that IANA may take some further action at its own discretion, which doesn't seem right. I would suggest deleting that phrase. From nobody Mon Jun 8 10:46:40 2015 Return-Path: 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 26CC31B314C for ; Mon, 8 Jun 2015 10:46:39 -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=unavailable 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 MzV6NVwR56H3 for ; Mon, 8 Jun 2015 10:46:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ig0-f180.google.com (mail-ig0-f180.google.com [209.85.213.180]) (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 C8E9D1B3150 for ; Mon, 8 Jun 2015 10:46:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: by igbpi8 with SMTP id pi8so64903381igb.0 for ; Mon, 08 Jun 2015 10:46:36 -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=SBa0WGYCXCT4ubJwz+W4bO3qKWZZf3sa+1f+1U29/vE=; b=jvreBNAPCvbX/2czPwKSokAQeUCFgvDjQpnKjya0+gADBglHR7eE4GA3c3v2phELQY tZ55C6ibjyWrdHojFnYoSCfueCo+V/Mdys/9Qwo2AV38RXl9z9TC3hUu0IDWJoLlqOHa Ju3ibkV4C7uWfAgGzl0wDwqmOgpeVzLloMYQYr2vKBZqJoZLAszav3Q2D8owsDLH2iXt ysm3wzA1dqkuoLaCGjfhTQ3CI7FfS7duyUTyCGgoXFEhYM7awM0rb707YS6zNyBfIPCs iRLn+kqkQLtjrCnWc5VJMXXntwAeSgDZ/qeaCuHeduT5gy9RkMmMKZohAsaNibfcJy1h 3DhQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmNgT5F8Oohav7mDQNblCtFUyJleZTmDcPZZTTvRTyMuvunhYM4uvleBojFMkOzYCrEG7No X-Received: by 10.43.178.195 with SMTP id ox3mr25503452icc.10.1433785596184; Mon, 08 Jun 2015 10:46:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from aither.local (c-73-34-202-214.hsd1.co.comcast.net. [73.34.202.214]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id d8sm786653igl.19.2015.06.08.10.46.34 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 08 Jun 2015 10:46:34 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <5575D4F9.40304@andyet.net> Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2015 11:46:33 -0600 From: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet 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: Alissa Cooper , The IESG References: <20150608133852.28922.84781.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20150608133852.28922.84781.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: 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] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-xmpp-6122bis-23: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: xmpp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: XMPP Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2015 17:46:39 -0000 Hi Alissa, thanks for the review. Comments inline. On 6/8/15 7:38 AM, Alissa Cooper wrote: > Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-xmpp-6122bis-23: 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-xmpp-6122bis/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > = Section 6.1 = > "Because this document obsoletes RFC 6122, > which registered the "Nodeprep" and "Resourceprep" profiles, IANA is > requested at the least to mark those profiles as not current > (preferably with a pointer to this document)." > > "At the least" implies that IANA may take some further action at its own > discretion, which doesn't seem right. I would suggest deleting that > phrase. Good catch. We had some discussion at one point about modifying the IANA Stringprep Profiles registry [1] so information other than the "current version indicator" (RFC 3454) could be included. We reached the conclusion that this was more trouble than it was worth. Let's remove the "at the least" text before publication. Peter [1] http://www.iana.org/assignments/stringprep-profiles/stringprep-profiles.xhtml From nobody Tue Jun 9 04:05:04 2015 Return-Path: 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 031351A00C0; Tue, 9 Jun 2015 04:05:01 -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] 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 nxa32MSnVX97; Tue, 9 Jun 2015 04:04:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B94F61A00A7; Tue, 9 Jun 2015 04:04:59 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Barry Leiba" To: "The IESG" X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.0.3.p2 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20150609110459.26823.80392.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2015 04:04:59 -0700 Archived-At: 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: [xmpp] Barry Leiba's Yes on draft-ietf-xmpp-6122bis-23: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: xmpp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: XMPP Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2015 11:05:01 -0000 Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-xmpp-6122bis-23: Yes 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/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I would make the RFC 6365 reference normative. The ABNF definition for localpart would benefit from citing [draft-ietf-precis-saslprepbis] by "UsernameCaseMapped profile". Similarly for "OpaqueString profile" in the definition of "resourcepart". (And, by the way, I wouldn't put quotation marks around the profile names.) The first paragraph of Section 3.2 defines a particular parsing order, which will affect a JID such as in example 15, way down below. I think it's worth explicitly saying that here, to reduce the likelihood that such JIDs might be mis-parsed. You do mention it in the note explaining example 15, but it'd be useful to highlight it here. In Section 3.3.1, I find the "i.e."s to be distracting clutter, and mildly recommend rendering those lines like this: U+0022 (QUOTATION MARK): " U+0026 (AMPERSAND): & In example 21, it might be more fun to use PILE OF POO (U+1F4A9) instead. Or maybe not... From nobody Tue Jun 9 08:27:10 2015 Return-Path: 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 825BA1A88BA for ; Tue, 9 Jun 2015 08:27:09 -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 LFUuX846Aegw for ; Tue, 9 Jun 2015 08:27:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ig0-f169.google.com (mail-ig0-f169.google.com [209.85.213.169]) (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 44F4B1A889D for ; Tue, 9 Jun 2015 08:27:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: by igbzc4 with SMTP id zc4so15067885igb.0 for ; Tue, 09 Jun 2015 08:27:06 -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=QOd5WOOiDOkd5eTvIXL720bhhVDAt0cZHQK58InXcCk=; b=RIFf65/ZG/4RKLzyexe/KJP3/ziaG4NHY7AiIal4FSBUJdnuRN4FEiY9XIR1uTz94S 7ogZ652vBA9o4xi56WAiYYYGkhCgBMvXDl+4zZ/lclJ9fAy1xuMqiPAzaYLIjtepxXfw YLJZ9XEwZoqT01zUloiJwF1H3C7aDu6k++b+HHH2m75bzQGQedfhGvXOwqjJUB0bfK/h lnxzhpWJAVDGBgHI5wQGoMZ9BNrbNkI/6WaGkF9CWlSN8pEFCKfGbxf7pcd8EOUZQZTK QQoD7tap3eO/uyw2/usYy9zl9JrqXLI2tYssZWZAipq3HcThMaaSbVR1f5zmfQ/I7NFO vijA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmwO/9DcKn9dwo1C3GYZT06PMW9Vkkh6K1LwLDbzQPVo+o8njCvIgYG0Vy4MkNQPGiuW3CA X-Received: by 10.50.59.211 with SMTP id b19mr20788642igr.42.1433863626697; Tue, 09 Jun 2015 08:27:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from aither.local ([2601:1:8200:3a60:fd92:c902:2aa6:49ec]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id r34sm4100313ioi.34.2015.06.09.08.27.04 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 09 Jun 2015 08:27:05 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <557705C8.3000306@andyet.net> Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2015 09:27:04 -0600 From: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet 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: Barry Leiba , The IESG References: <20150609110459.26823.80392.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20150609110459.26823.80392.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: 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] Barry Leiba's Yes on draft-ietf-xmpp-6122bis-23: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: xmpp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: XMPP Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2015 15:27:09 -0000 On 6/9/15 5:04 AM, Barry Leiba wrote: > Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-xmpp-6122bis-23: Yes > > 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/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > I would make the RFC 6365 reference normative. Agreed. > The ABNF definition for localpart would benefit from citing > [draft-ietf-precis-saslprepbis] by "UsernameCaseMapped profile". > Similarly for "OpaqueString profile" in the definition of "resourcepart". > (And, by the way, I wouldn't put quotation marks around the profile > names.) Good points. > The first paragraph of Section 3.2 defines a particular parsing order, > which will affect a JID such as in example 15, way down below. I think > it's worth explicitly saying that here, to reduce the likelihood that > such JIDs might be mis-parsed. You do mention it in the note explaining > example 15, but it'd be useful to highlight it here. Yes, that would be helpful because the order does matter. I suggest: OLD The domainpart of a JID is that portion which remains once any portion from the first '/' character to the end of the string has been removed (if there is a '/' character present), and then any portion from the beginning of the string to the first '@' character (if there is a '@' character present). NEW The domainpart of a JID is that portion which remains once the following parsing steps are taken: 1. Remove any portion from the first '/' character to the end of the string (if there is a '/' character present). 2. Remove any portion from the beginning of the string to the first '@' character (if there is a '@' character present). This parsing order is important, as illustrated by example 15 in Section 3.5. > In Section 3.3.1, I find the "i.e."s to be distracting clutter, and > mildly recommend rendering those lines like this: > > U+0022 (QUOTATION MARK): " > U+0026 (AMPERSAND): & This might be confusing... U+003A (COLON): : So I'll change the order to: " U+0022 (QUOTATION MARK) & U+0026 (AMPERSAND) ' U+0027 (APOSTROPHE) / U+002F (SOLIDUS) : U+003A (COLON) < U+003C (LESS-THAN SIGN) > U+003E (GREATER-THAN SIGN) @ U+0040 (COMMERCIAL AT) Peter From nobody Tue Jun 9 09:41:52 2015 Return-Path: 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 ADBE61A90FA; Tue, 9 Jun 2015 09:41:47 -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 S_lpxXWt7QGS; Tue, 9 Jun 2015 09:41:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ig0-x22c.google.com (mail-ig0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::22c]) (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 9D1F11A90F9; Tue, 9 Jun 2015 09:41:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: by igbzc4 with SMTP id zc4so16712143igb.0; Tue, 09 Jun 2015 09:41:46 -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=Y1fAEcWJNlO4dFOk87CKgK7hGT177Cn9IMIYSEOXlAg=; b=Av/gPkQO0VRK1UgZ18PSWzLs7qQmQjDjeLmFWcbtkzbwP/jJXREJcLQ0286Nw0Q7md wVvFXgz8VGchf023FMAohUL+9dGLl8L1BhF9RIsjan+ZWsfLbJXwQ/QTIG9wKaznD+rW /P+7Qa8Fx/g48THbzZXEqb019YXfuoFFmIn3bazdTYR8qirAyEAAfn75yUfQezWc1DMi CHGY9mQW12PYgb9GQ6rl0tmNyXdUoaTh8WXaJzQlkSk38o8BS2a+bnr4RDMJdJDlgSdo p5gF5+bNja/0h3cjIRamDYr51quorYBwUjLvST/5HCawJhnRcK1zuDXwa1R30OezfQ4e Wm/A== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.43.227 with SMTP id z3mr21509174igl.12.1433868106133; Tue, 09 Jun 2015 09:41:46 -0700 (PDT) Sender: barryleiba@gmail.com Received: by 10.107.16.222 with HTTP; Tue, 9 Jun 2015 09:41:46 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <557705C8.3000306@andyet.net> References: <20150609110459.26823.80392.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <557705C8.3000306@andyet.net> Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2015 17:41:46 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: VG_XvnHAxF2Td6MiF_EBww2MrVs Message-ID: From: Barry Leiba To: "Peter Saint-Andre - &yet" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Archived-At: Cc: xmpp-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-xmpp-6122bis@ietf.org, xmpp@ietf.org, draft-ietf-xmpp-6122bis.ad@ietf.org, The IESG , draft-ietf-xmpp-6122bis.shepherd@ietf.org Subject: Re: [xmpp] Barry Leiba's Yes on draft-ietf-xmpp-6122bis-23: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: xmpp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: XMPP Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2015 16:41:47 -0000 Hi, Peter; thanks for the response. > OLD > The domainpart of a JID is that portion which remains once any > portion from the first '/' character to the end of the string has > been removed (if there is a '/' character present), and then any > portion from the beginning of the string to the first '@' character > (if there is a '@' character present). > > NEW > The domainpart of a JID is that portion which remains once the > following parsing steps are taken: > > 1. Remove any portion from the first '/' character to the end of the > string (if there is a '/' character present). > > 2. Remove any portion from the beginning of the string to the first > '@' character (if there is a '@' character present). > > This parsing order is important, as illustrated by example 15 in > Section 3.5. Nice; thanks. >> In Section 3.3.1, I find the "i.e."s to be distracting clutter, and >> mildly recommend rendering those lines like this: >> >> U+0022 (QUOTATION MARK): " >> U+0026 (AMPERSAND): & > > This might be confusing... > > U+003A (COLON): : Ah, true. > So I'll change the order to: > > " U+0022 (QUOTATION MARK) > & U+0026 (AMPERSAND) > ' U+0027 (APOSTROPHE) > / U+002F (SOLIDUS) > : U+003A (COLON) > < U+003C (LESS-THAN SIGN) > > U+003E (GREATER-THAN SIGN) > @ U+0040 (COMMERCIAL AT) Yes, that's a good way to handle it. b From nobody Wed Jun 10 07:28:09 2015 Return-Path: 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 22B2E1B2B10; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 07:28:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.7 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, J_CHICKENPOX_35=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_37=0.6] 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 tDQsJpbR_71U; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 07:28:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E8691B2AD5; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 07:28:01 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Brian Haberman" To: "The IESG" X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.0.3.p2 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20150610142801.2677.38267.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 07:28:01 -0700 Archived-At: 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: [xmpp] Brian Haberman's Discuss on draft-ietf-xmpp-6122bis-23: (with DISCUSS) X-BeenThere: xmpp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: XMPP Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 14:28:02 -0000 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. From nobody Wed Jun 10 10:22:28 2015 Return-Path: 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 ; 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 ; 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 ; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 10:22:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: by igbpi8 with SMTP id pi8so40586063igb.0 for ; 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 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 , The IESG 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: 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-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 From nobody Wed Jun 10 10:55:18 2015 Return-Path: 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 35BFE1B33E1; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 10:55:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.7 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, J_CHICKENPOX_35=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_37=0.6] 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 UKdMkv05i407; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 10:55:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from uillean.fuaim.com (uillean.fuaim.com [206.197.161.140]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F07E91B33D5; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 10:55:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from clairseach.fuaim.com (clairseach-high.fuaim.com [206.197.161.158]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by uillean.fuaim.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7B50880F0; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 10:55:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Brians-MacBook-Pro.local (unknown [76.21.129.88]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by clairseach.fuaim.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C0A771B0002; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 10:55:11 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <557879F4.3020106@innovationslab.net> Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 13:55:00 -0400 From: Brian Haberman 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: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet , The IESG References: <20150610142801.2677.38267.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <5578724E.10307@andyet.net> In-Reply-To: <5578724E.10307@andyet.net> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="6hMXJgnRLA3fLqXWeq2iXFFcDlfBgoIHS" Archived-At: 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 17:55:14 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --6hMXJgnRLA3fLqXWeq2iXFFcDlfBgoIHS Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Peter, On 6/10/15 1:22 PM, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet wrote: > Hi Brian, thanks for the review. >=20 > 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 thi= s >> introductory paragraph, however.) >> >> >> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.h= tml >> 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 =3D 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 fr= om >> ; RFC 3986 implies that IPv6 addresses are enclo= sed >> ; in square brackets (i.e., beginning with '[' a= nd >> ; 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 =3D "[" ( IPv6address / IPv6addrz / IPvFuture ) "]"= >> ZoneID =3D 1*( unreserved / pct-encoded ) >> IPv6addrz =3D IPv6address "%25" ZoneID >> >> I suspect you will get varying results depending on how many implement= ers >> follow the Updates chain of 3986. >=20 > My apologies, I forgot that RFC 6874 updated RFC 3986 in this regard. I= f > we keep this text, I agree that we should point to RFC 6974. Agreed. >=20 > RFC 6122 had this text: >=20 > ; 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 >=20 > 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: >=20 > ; 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 s/3896/3986/ > ; applies to the matching process > ; > ; note well that reuse of the IP-literal rule from= > ; RFC 6874 implies that IPv6 addresses are enclose= d > ; 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 >=20 > 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 68= 74. I agree that a proper reference to 6874 would be useful. Is there any need to mention the potential for a literal to include the zone id? Brian --6hMXJgnRLA3fLqXWeq2iXFFcDlfBgoIHS Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJVeHn5AAoJEBOZRqCi7goqbQkIAMplwuAIkGbC4rvA4vEtl/bO 2iW0fevBDIAAqSdIlEgW5p4dLtjQBTwyJKEEuRlPBaZoagKDwo2fZFeAJshHoBZb Hl0n1hpSx/FI8ZhNmus/8e1JUaXjTdh3d881eAWgSgYs9TmHEwd2LcWbnZwbX2Mu CDZ2koU86jIEj3uhNHqDNs1B1GXt5FzqVg647uJacUs/Ju4Z1oDP4UIvZvrSeZsC 5pMT+/8JAw3F0AVyguNWuQW3lQK2jsZV8qRbmHL05N7uZANl73BYcLEiWMv6Malf xLkpDMYVvOyK34tqKkNI2EPBs+42/NW99bd6zPkB85cBzpFmqXmjGH3OvfqCgNU= =VQEu -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --6hMXJgnRLA3fLqXWeq2iXFFcDlfBgoIHS-- From nobody Wed Jun 10 11:08:05 2015 Return-Path: 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 BA16E1B3408 for ; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 11:08:04 -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 0cE1q6Y8yfd6 for ; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 11:08:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ie0-f182.google.com (mail-ie0-f182.google.com [209.85.223.182]) (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 6BF9E1B3403 for ; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 11:08:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: by iesa3 with SMTP id a3so40009929ies.2 for ; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 11:07:59 -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=vS4/j04MJvh6JDaFWG7rcoqCz8fQ/3C5hN5KXeHWz6I=; b=bQ2+MreVCGuRE50QBHptNRfcJPP3rO6LM0vJcO4rdcDPDwkYiSzS1nZR/zF8rDJqDX w60sIKlWScHVuHZxLvmaFbEi7HYRDFZ/xPkbHgg2zQ5o1ovuDGA2D8l8psE+3ph4jbUy QS9Ohue0g3rcrLk/Ey8pQG9IK8aqn7dw7RCWOEoxsluiNAadebhxxEE+/w21BCmgcvPW NRrESH7Z+7Fznfh6afi0Nfsafi7Wo0qiDzLyui6RTwAmjkUNBDnw7k6QceWjcucs/58v 137Hu2TjAhErkIBtOyrQ4rFdvI94+2Y8rwpSMc8TLA4JsS+WU8vPPedRHlDVwwY2vTDd vGbw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlv9TaKJHrOdBaLN74AfbNAg2C2l0+AYVUVegZZfKq/2rMvPc3dvxz1Ox7D9ECGkwv6xdSS X-Received: by 10.50.43.227 with SMTP id z3mr7541891igl.12.1433959679665; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 11:07:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from aither.local ([2601:1:8200:3a60:89a0:20ab:ccd0:50f1]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id g23sm6461716iod.37.2015.06.10.11.07.57 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 10 Jun 2015 11:07:57 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <55787CFC.4050701@andyet.net> Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 12:07:56 -0600 From: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet 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 , The IESG References: <20150610142801.2677.38267.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <5578724E.10307@andyet.net> <557879F4.3020106@innovationslab.net> In-Reply-To: <557879F4.3020106@innovationslab.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 18:08:04 -0000 Proposed text at end. On 6/10/15 11:55 AM, Brian Haberman wrote: > Hi Peter, > > On 6/10/15 1:22 PM, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet wrote: >> 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. > > Agreed. > >> >> 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 > > s/3896/3986/ > >> ; 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. > > I agree that a proper reference to 6874 would be useful. Is there any > need to mention the potential for a literal to include the zone id? How is this text? ### domainpart = IP-literal / IPv4address / ifqdn ; ; the "IPv4address" and "IP-literal" rules are ; defined in RFC 3896 and RFC 6874 respectively, ; and the first-match-wins (a.k.a. "greedy") ; algorithm described in Appendix B of RFC 3986 ; applies to the matching process Implementation Note: Reuse of the IP-literal rule from [RFC6874] 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 [RFC3920] but which was changed in [RFC6122]. Also note that the IP-literal rule was updated between RFC 3986 and RFC 6874 to optionally add a zone identifier to any literal address. ### Peter From nobody Wed Jun 10 12:27:38 2015 Return-Path: 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 500C51A883D; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 12:27:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.3 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, J_CHICKENPOX_37=0.6] 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 mOQt995znsgQ; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 12:27:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from uillean.fuaim.com (uillean.fuaim.com [206.197.161.140]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A4BDC1A8831; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 12:27:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from clairseach.fuaim.com (clairseach-high.fuaim.com [206.197.161.158]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by uillean.fuaim.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80E7B88140; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 12:27:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Brians-MacBook-Pro.local (unknown [76.21.129.88]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by clairseach.fuaim.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95D1271B0002; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 12:27:32 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <55788F9B.5080105@innovationslab.net> Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 15:27:23 -0400 From: Brian Haberman 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: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet , The IESG References: <20150610142801.2677.38267.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <5578724E.10307@andyet.net> <557879F4.3020106@innovationslab.net> <55787CFC.4050701@andyet.net> In-Reply-To: <55787CFC.4050701@andyet.net> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="B5bVk9QJAocC48k02CXMmxkqAIDduL4Pt" Archived-At: Cc: xmpp-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-xmpp-6122bis.ad@ietf.org, xmpp@ietf.org, draft-ietf-xmpp-6122bis@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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 19:27:34 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --B5bVk9QJAocC48k02CXMmxkqAIDduL4Pt Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Peter, On 6/10/15 2:07 PM, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet wrote: >> I agree that a proper reference to 6874 would be useful. Is there any= >> need to mention the potential for a literal to include the zone id? >=20 > How is this text? >=20 > ### >=20 > domainpart =3D IP-literal / IPv4address / ifqdn > ; > ; the "IPv4address" and "IP-literal" rules are > ; defined in RFC 3896 and RFC 6874 respectively, > ; and the first-match-wins (a.k.a. "greedy") > ; algorithm described in Appendix B of RFC 3986 > ; applies to the matching process >=20 > >=20 > Implementation Note: Reuse of the IP-literal rule from [RFC6874] > 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 [RFC3920] but > which was changed in [RFC6122]. Also note that the IP-literal > rule was updated between RFC 3986 and RFC 6874 to optionally add = a > zone identifier to any literal address. >=20 > ### >=20 This all works for me. Thanks for the quick response and turn around! Brian --B5bVk9QJAocC48k02CXMmxkqAIDduL4Pt Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJVeI+hAAoJEBOZRqCi7goqSA8H/24n9OrXrHMDWJPcZnkfalmr bL31QxeOj3kEgH46Dam6lg8X5e26lRCZcETZooMskL23MSMo0WhGTMOMuIFDMjbn 0KS1au/NCql/4BamL+3Iu/0c7SxgEBHIDT3n+cQaOm5mUQG+Om3vc1mkF9c6M69r 0yFF54gbc1M2gOtdZ3lTRhRQjDS1lwvyu78A6YnkYvhOdWGZlAX41kOf8bBUCPqT LLjua8vDWxExuAMkLA6rg3hG6grB+lV5j5O0rI4CbcUVfLobEcRgXW7zRhZFmFJ/ HlpregYSoiv1N1005MW5PGdRoxamhe2/czTwhRKM5VcSqhsetQ0dtvTNvwy2/a0= =yUbu -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --B5bVk9QJAocC48k02CXMmxkqAIDduL4Pt-- From nobody Wed Jun 10 12:28:53 2015 Return-Path: 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 56AFC1A8831 for ; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 12:28:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.001 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, J_CHICKENPOX_37=0.6, 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 poHiywZoE_eb for ; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 12:28:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ig0-f179.google.com (mail-ig0-f179.google.com [209.85.213.179]) (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 CEDEB1A882A for ; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 12:28:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: by igbsb11 with SMTP id sb11so40667303igb.0 for ; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 12:28:50 -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=lEcX0vQZiglLRSt17ba+nIPF6dwHmy21SZbbgcrxGsI=; b=iLgl2sTH9MuhdtqnWQX6doKxdKXPu3KBatxbIMtnT6YGQv7EdqjohHGMynEOrT7ps9 HjBtTrFhJvxNFfKtCBnwg5cgNAgPMp6hC45pXsHFDhEPZM+VvZse8WWj6fYHzlxNDtQL sqxibWKvllbXVSRrtvjxAqdXk6BEhDu7VSBwno6RA+CY+rIQdWyHNTjv8mhws1PLsmob FOZXRZWPdz9fq9R48XiJ6Zc34GXRNHrW17EjsKrz4lWEUW5PJCnCPYp6Va5ZbzkmD5B0 i1hmuRBr0tRmOZK0Wn/QutdoXI9RoEBJI/4SExD5NV1g7SLOStSIQlFky5VVRTqIow3L EVYw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQm5WNUHebYwbxx8whY9Bjtg02vY8xSu8v3O+4Yl1cLLi9TnnVlfgyT53H1EVpnPmc3enqBr X-Received: by 10.50.43.137 with SMTP id w9mr29831161igl.30.1433964530276; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 12:28:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from aither.local ([2601:1:8200:3a60:89a0:20ab:ccd0:50f1]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id 140sm6599089ion.16.2015.06.10.12.28.47 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 10 Jun 2015 12:28:48 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <55788FEF.4020505@andyet.net> Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 13:28:47 -0600 From: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet 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 , The IESG References: <20150610142801.2677.38267.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <5578724E.10307@andyet.net> <557879F4.3020106@innovationslab.net> <55787CFC.4050701@andyet.net> <55788F9B.5080105@innovationslab.net> In-Reply-To: <55788F9B.5080105@innovationslab.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Cc: xmpp-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-xmpp-6122bis.ad@ietf.org, xmpp@ietf.org, draft-ietf-xmpp-6122bis@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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 19:28:52 -0000 On 6/10/15 1:27 PM, Brian Haberman wrote: > Hi Peter, > > On 6/10/15 2:07 PM, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet wrote: > >>> I agree that a proper reference to 6874 would be useful. Is there any >>> need to mention the potential for a literal to include the zone id? >> >> How is this text? >> >> ### >> >> domainpart = IP-literal / IPv4address / ifqdn >> ; >> ; the "IPv4address" and "IP-literal" rules are >> ; defined in RFC 3896 and RFC 6874 respectively, >> ; and the first-match-wins (a.k.a. "greedy") >> ; algorithm described in Appendix B of RFC 3986 >> ; applies to the matching process >> >> >> >> Implementation Note: Reuse of the IP-literal rule from [RFC6874] >> 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 [RFC3920] but >> which was changed in [RFC6122]. Also note that the IP-literal >> rule was updated between RFC 3986 and RFC 6874 to optionally add a >> zone identifier to any literal address. >> >> ### >> > > This all works for me. Thanks for the quick response and turn around! Great. I'll post a revised I-D after the telechat. Peter From nobody Wed Jun 10 12:55:51 2015 Return-Path: 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 66E171A8991; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 12:55:47 -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] 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 E10NlhskcHVf; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 12:55:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F67F1A895B; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 12:55:46 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Brian Haberman" To: "The IESG" X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.0.3.p2 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20150610195546.27785.28948.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 12:55:46 -0700 Archived-At: 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: [xmpp] Brian Haberman's No Objection on draft-ietf-xmpp-6122bis-23: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: xmpp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: XMPP Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 19:55:47 -0000 Brian Haberman has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-xmpp-6122bis-23: 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-xmpp-6122bis/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I have cleared my DISCUSS based on the changes proposed by PSA. Thanks for the quick turnaround. From nobody Thu Jun 11 01:42:36 2015 Return-Path: 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 0862A1B2D97; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 01:42:33 -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] 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 7szFTNCufr5p; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 01:42:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8537D1B2D7E; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 01:42:10 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Benoit Claise" To: "The IESG" X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.0.3.p2 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20150611084210.13059.26674.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 01:42:10 -0700 Archived-At: Cc: xmpp-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-xmpp-6122bis@ietf.org, xmpp@ietf.org, dromasca@avaya.com, draft-ietf-xmpp-6122bis.ad@ietf.org, draft-ietf-xmpp-6122bis.shepherd@ietf.org Subject: [xmpp] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-xmpp-6122bis-23: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: xmpp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: XMPP Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 08:42:33 -0000 Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-xmpp-6122bis-23: 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-xmpp-6122bis/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for this operation-related sentence, based on Dan Romascanu's review: Because it is possible that previously-valid JIDs might no longer be valid (or previously-invalid JIDs might now be valid), operators of XMPP services are advised to perform careful testing before migrating accounts and other data (see Section 6.1 of [I-D.ietf-precis-saslprepbis] for guidance). From nobody Thu Jun 11 08:16:09 2015 Return-Path: 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 CCC8A1B2B3B; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 08:16:06 -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] 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 m_Y72WsXItPX; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 08:16:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB46A1B2B43; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 08:15:57 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.0.3.p2 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20150611151557.32569.91272.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 08:15:57 -0700 Archived-At: Cc: xmpp@ietf.org Subject: [xmpp] I-D Action: draft-ietf-xmpp-6122bis-24.txt X-BeenThere: xmpp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: XMPP Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 15:16:07 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol Working Group of the IETF. Title : Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP): Address Format Author : Peter Saint-Andre Filename : draft-ietf-xmpp-6122bis-24.txt Pages : 25 Date : 2015-06-11 Abstract: This document defines the address format for the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP), including support for code points outside the ASCII range. This document obsoletes RFC 6122. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-xmpp-6122bis/ There's also a htmlized version available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-xmpp-6122bis-24 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-xmpp-6122bis-24 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/ From nobody Thu Jun 11 08:40:45 2015 Return-Path: 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 C041D1B2B3E for ; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 08:40:43 -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 Vo11y6qdGkNn for ; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 08:40:42 -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 5525A1B2B20 for ; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 08:40:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: by igbzc4 with SMTP id zc4so58099827igb.0 for ; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 08:40:41 -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 :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=sy93mHSuwMKmTDMXGzzlmXA/AiPT4zxvWPwBXIsxCPA=; b=fVHR6S7gMcpH+a+VHlnEtIqiT9nchIBBqzTU9Hst6nxM00buNOXSer40KIQqj/aw1o VTnApCvseSSNAOLpQv18iREpPZzS6lCnpkDZkNR7a8P+LYu21jiQvNVXcA0R7TgQDLI0 xfBDNdiOFLkq4pWLoKSmAqBTsYkUWDyS4Is9DrnRynbyN7ft/tP9/+JAIAIwPxz9PVqZ hoHbnb6OjmeLRxV3WYZMxG91lusfxcqHY3/QA2ZTGIu6wGm92d9a7U5qrJSjvnMxgVR9 x5yvqEr3HJWkJH2N23TXvlxJ2pvHCDAdfcIOr3LYDUzckiGkfhrGvMgqXhdIgsQcjpt6 4COA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQk1g7xHx/cwdZfMse0adMDRONvYwU8xpECZPa+RDp9LO36bzjk5xCjnrd1MT3qdVQ86xA2Y X-Received: by 10.50.28.43 with SMTP id y11mr2628473igg.8.1434037241546; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 08:40:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from aither.local (c-73-34-202-214.hsd1.co.comcast.net. [73.34.202.214]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id vk8sm5536617igb.4.2015.06.11.08.40.38 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 11 Jun 2015 08:40:39 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <5579ABF6.6010706@andyet.net> Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 09:40:38 -0600 From: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet 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: xmpp@ietf.org References: <20150611151557.32569.91272.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20150611151557.32569.91272.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [xmpp] I-D Action: draft-ietf-xmpp-6122bis-24.txt X-BeenThere: xmpp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: XMPP Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 15:40:43 -0000 A few edits to address IESG review. On 6/11/15 9:15 AM, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote: > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. > This draft is a work item of the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol Working Group of the IETF. > > Title : Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP): Address Format > Author : Peter Saint-Andre > Filename : draft-ietf-xmpp-6122bis-24.txt > Pages : 25 > Date : 2015-06-11 > > Abstract: > This document defines the address format for the Extensible Messaging > and Presence Protocol (XMPP), including support for code points > outside the ASCII range. This document obsoletes RFC 6122. > > > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-xmpp-6122bis/ > > There's also a htmlized version available at: > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-xmpp-6122bis-24 > > A diff from the previous version is available at: > https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-xmpp-6122bis-24 > > > 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/ > > _______________________________________________ > xmpp mailing list > xmpp@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xmpp > From nobody Thu Jun 11 13:06:53 2015 Return-Path: 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 A47AF1B3126; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 13:06:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.91 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 08HnXcRS63TX; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 13:06:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (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 CA5451B3127; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 13:06:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.0.1.23] (cpe-70-119-203-4.tx.res.rr.com [70.119.203.4]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.1/8.14.9) with ESMTPSA id t5BK6WuK065196 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 11 Jun 2015 15:06:43 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com) X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host cpe-70-119-203-4.tx.res.rr.com [70.119.203.4] claimed to be [10.0.1.23] From: "Ben Campbell" To: "The IESG" Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 15:06:32 -0500 Message-ID: <13814FF4-B9BD-4B67-BFC2-9A40FBEE7AD5@nostrum.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.1r5084) Archived-At: Cc: XMPP Working Group Subject: [xmpp] Approved: draft-ietf-xmpp-6122bis-24 X-BeenThere: xmpp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: XMPP Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 20:06:50 -0000 Hi, draft-ietf-xmpp-6122bis-24 is approved. There are no RFC editor notes. Thanks! Ben. From nobody Mon Jun 15 12:18:03 2015 Return-Path: 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 B5FFE1A8861; Mon, 15 Jun 2015 12:18:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 sR6TyIAzJIW3; Mon, 15 Jun 2015 12:18:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DCD91A886D; Mon, 15 Jun 2015 12:17:56 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: The IESG To: "IETF-Announce" X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.0.3.p3 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20150615191756.32261.18236.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2015 12:17:56 -0700 Archived-At: Cc: xmpp chair , xmpp mailing list , RFC Editor Subject: [xmpp] Protocol Action: 'Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP): Address Format' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-xmpp-6122bis-24.txt) X-BeenThere: xmpp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: XMPP Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2015 19:18:01 -0000 The IESG has approved the following document: - 'Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP): Address Format' (draft-ietf-xmpp-6122bis-24.txt) as Proposed Standard This document is the product of the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Barry Leiba, Ben Campbell and Alissa Cooper. A URL of this Internet Draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-xmpp-6122bis/ Technical Summary This document defines the address format for the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP), including support for code points outside the ASCII range. This document obsoletes RFC 6122 to move from using stringprep to using precis profiles. Working Group Summary This document received review from a small but active number of individuals from the Working Group and the XMPP Community. There is consensus to publish this document. The XMPP Community did raise the concern that some addresses which are valid using RFC 6122 are no longer valid using this document. However, the consensus of the XMPP Community and the Working Group is that: this document adequately describes the concerns and potential ways to resolve such issues; and that such JIDs are exceedingly rare, if they have ever been encountered. Document Quality XMPP has a number of interoperable implementations, and a vibrant development community. Several implementers have reviewed various versions of this document. Personnel The Document Shepherd is Matthew Miller The responsible AD is Ben Campbell. From nobody Wed Jun 24 13:17:07 2015 Return-Path: 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 CBA381B2DAC for ; Wed, 24 Jun 2015 13:17:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.91 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 hrVxuRemvGCT for ; Wed, 24 Jun 2015 13:17:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (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 35A301B2DB0 for ; Wed, 24 Jun 2015 13:17:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.0.1.23] (cpe-70-119-203-4.tx.res.rr.com [70.119.203.4]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.1/8.14.9) with ESMTPSA id t5OKGnLV095333 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 24 Jun 2015 15:17:00 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com) X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host cpe-70-119-203-4.tx.res.rr.com [70.119.203.4] claimed to be [10.0.1.23] From: "Ben Campbell" To: draft-ietf-xmpp-dna.all@tools.ietf.org, "XMPP Working Group" Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 15:16:49 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.1r5084) Archived-At: Subject: [xmpp] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-xmpp-dna-10 X-BeenThere: xmpp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: XMPP Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 20:17:06 -0000 Hi, Here is my AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-xmpp-dna-10. I have a few minor comments, but nothing that needs to delay the last call. Thanks! Ben. ------- -- Section 4.1: Does the "(Section 4.3: No Mutual PKIX authentication)" belong where it is, or before the first dialback assertion? -- 4.3, step 6: Do I understand correctly that this step involves A sending a valid and trusted server cert, when it was previously unable to send a valid and trusted client cert? Is that a reasonable assumption? Whether yes or no, does it deserve a mention in the text? (It's likely I am missing something that should be obvious.) -- step 7: The reference to xep-0344 is informative. Should it be normative? If not, then perhaps a stronger mention of skipping subsequent steps should be included here? (it’s only mentioned in terms of the reference.) -- 4.4.1, steps 3 and later: The text says that A sends an initial stream header to B. Should that be considered B or C for the rest of the flow? I guess in the example, B==C, but is that required? (perhaps B and C coordinate dialback keys?) Maybe it doesn't matter from A's perspective. From nobody Wed Jun 24 13:32:12 2015 Return-Path: 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 F2D101B2DAA; Wed, 24 Jun 2015 13:32:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 i6msFR8EozLK; Wed, 24 Jun 2015 13:32:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13F1D1B2DBD; Wed, 24 Jun 2015 13:32:09 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: The IESG To: "IETF-Announce" X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.0.4 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Sender: Message-ID: <20150624203209.9057.6013.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 13:32:09 -0700 Archived-At: Cc: xmpp@ietf.org Subject: [xmpp] Last Call: (Domain Name Associations (DNA) in the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP)) to Proposed Standard X-BeenThere: xmpp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org List-Id: XMPP Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 20:32:11 -0000 The IESG has received a request from the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol WG (xmpp) to consider the following document: - 'Domain Name Associations (DNA) in the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP)' as 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@ietf.org mailing lists by 2015-07-08. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Please note that this draft has a normative reference to the XMPP Standards Foundation XEP 0220. Abstract This document improves the security of the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP) in two ways. First, it specifies how to establish a strong association between a domain name and an XML stream, using the concept of "prooftypes". Second, it describes how to securely delegate a service domain name (e.g., example.com) to a target server host name (e.g., hosting.example.net), which is especially important in multi-tenanted environments where the same target server hosts a large number of domains. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-xmpp-dna/ IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-xmpp-dna/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. From nobody Wed Jun 24 13:41:46 2015 Return-Path: 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 771241B2D9E for ; Wed, 24 Jun 2015 13:41:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.91 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 xOaEC8NqYKDk for ; Wed, 24 Jun 2015 13:41:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (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 93E0C1A886D for ; Wed, 24 Jun 2015 13:41:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.0.1.23] (cpe-70-119-203-4.tx.res.rr.com [70.119.203.4]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.1/8.14.9) with ESMTPSA id t5OKfXSH097494 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 24 Jun 2015 15:41:44 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com) X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host cpe-70-119-203-4.tx.res.rr.com [70.119.203.4] claimed to be [10.0.1.23] From: "Ben Campbell" To: draft-ietf-xmpp-posh.all@tools.ietf.org, "XMPP Working Group" Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 15:41:33 -0500 Message-ID: <86E041F3-A90D-45E6-945E-3BAC592F8E58@nostrum.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.1r5084) Archived-At: Subject: [xmpp] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-xmpp-posh-04 X-BeenThere: xmpp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: XMPP Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 20:41:45 -0000 Hi, This is my AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-xmpp-posh-04. There's nothing here to block last call. Thanks! Ben. -------- -- section 3, first paragraph after first numbered list: " ... server proves it identity ..." s/it/its -- 8, last sentence With this one sentence, you've made the entire introduction serve as a shaggy dog story, without detracting from its main purpose. Bravo. Also, groan :-) -- References: IDNits turns up several outdated references that probably need attention before final publication. From nobody Wed Jun 24 14:00:05 2015 Return-Path: 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 B2EFE1B2E00; Wed, 24 Jun 2015 14:00:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 wLkiRvj04zLD; Wed, 24 Jun 2015 14:00:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 570FA1B2DED; Wed, 24 Jun 2015 14:00:01 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: The IESG To: "IETF-Announce" X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.0.4 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Sender: Message-ID: <20150624210001.5814.64595.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 14:00:01 -0700 Archived-At: Cc: xmpp@ietf.org Subject: [xmpp] Last Call: (PKIX over Secure HTTP (POSH)) to Proposed Standard X-BeenThere: xmpp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org List-Id: XMPP Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 21:00:02 -0000 The IESG has received a request from the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol WG (xmpp) to consider the following document: - 'PKIX over Secure HTTP (POSH)' as 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@ietf.org mailing lists by 2015-07-08. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract Experience has shown that it is extremely difficult to deploy proper PKIX certificates for TLS in multi-tenanted environments. As a result, domains hosted in such environments often deploy applications using certificates that identify the hosting service, not the hosted domain. Such deployments force end users and peer services to accept a certificate with an improper identifier, resulting in obvious security implications. This document defines two methods that make it easier to deploy certificates for proper server identity checking in non-HTTP application protocols. While these methods developed for use in the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP) as a Domain Name Association (DNA) prooftype, they might also be usable in other non-HTTP application protocols. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-xmpp-posh/ IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-xmpp-posh/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. From nobody Wed Jun 24 14:44:27 2015 Return-Path: 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 EAD761B2E58 for ; Wed, 24 Jun 2015 14:44:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.001 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, J_CHICKENPOX_17=0.6, 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 nZMqLmZpXTVU for ; Wed, 24 Jun 2015 14:44:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ig0-f179.google.com (mail-ig0-f179.google.com [209.85.213.179]) (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 167E01B2E54 for ; Wed, 24 Jun 2015 14:44:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: by igblr2 with SMTP id lr2so43147907igb.0 for ; Wed, 24 Jun 2015 14:44:23 -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 :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=1Mrip28M5TK03shqzNnQwKjKHbbQDxfU2ekOqo5vMEk=; b=axiC8KjTJNWT4qg8ZpOZpTLUUfno0Fd5rzbnwdyemKiaDbloUZn97DC8Kh+s5OYKSw 3X0gYAbWams1bMNvUXm5pShyUqEO7q8DCA05OwbEKGqfDdWdJ8gYBGVsI8packH3+qNP m7jD+IyRSYQybzeq7EEZwj3JI7myEsljRjiIjIOe0FO4nfRKYTcnW+8Qs9FFojJzeYIG oeQdk7f9fPE6g7APNykMY0d30xhCzcTJTxjVdhjj+2SgYKSBgD7hiv2ZIlymvNptVMM1 J1wkAWWQKvBiR0eT6sPzBLlb6IQ+N79tpabtZG/QF3o6T6NLQCoxLFBI0Y1eQp3ije1/ RJ0Q== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnOZQpFR6vR+dj65lFn+cjgGn/DCsrBfCJq4KaTdR5gzEQAmm2fO11VqyhYOMR0jBue/9L+ X-Received: by 10.107.47.224 with SMTP id v93mr55120011iov.86.1435182263484; Wed, 24 Jun 2015 14:44:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from aither.local ([2601:282:4201:ef5b:7dc6:738e:73e4:2f00]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id p39sm18161884ioi.5.2015.06.24.14.44.21 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 24 Jun 2015 14:44:22 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <558B24B3.3010406@andyet.net> Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 15:44:19 -0600 From: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet 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: Ben Campbell , draft-ietf-xmpp-dna.all@tools.ietf.org, XMPP Working Group References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [xmpp] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-xmpp-dna-10 X-BeenThere: xmpp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: XMPP Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 21:44:26 -0000 On 6/24/15 2:16 PM, Ben Campbell wrote: > Hi, > > Here is my AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-xmpp-dna-10. I have a few minor > comments, but nothing that needs to delay the last call. > > Thanks! > > Ben. > ------- > > -- Section 4.1: > > Does the "(Section 4.3: No Mutual PKIX authentication)" belong where it > is, or before the first dialback assertion? Yes, it belongs farther up. > -- 4.3, step 6: > > Do I understand correctly that this step involves A sending a valid and > trusted server cert, when it was previously unable to send a valid and > trusted client cert? Is that a reasonable assumption? Whether yes or no, > does it deserve a mention in the text? (It's likely I am missing > something that should be obvious.) We haven't described this very well. As you point out, Server B doesn't trust this certificate (perhaps there's a name mismatch or whatever) and that's the whole point of this flow. > -- step 7: > > The reference to xep-0344 is informative. Should it be normative? If > not, then perhaps a stronger mention of skipping subsequent steps should > be included here? (it’s only mentioned in terms of the reference.) In the flow described here (falling back to Server Dialback), the subsequent steps are necessary. I would suggest. OLD 6. The servers attempt TLS negotiation, during which Server A (acting as a TLS server) presents a PKIX certificate proving that it is a.example. 7. Server B checks the PKIX certificate that Server A provided. This might be the same certificate presented by Server A as a client certificate in the initial connection. See [XEP-0344] for further discussion about skipping the subsequent steps. 8. Server B proceeds with Server Dialback in order to establish the domain name association. In order to do this it sends a request for verification as described in [XEP-0220]: some- dialback-key 9. Server A responds to this: some- dialback-key 9. Server A responds to this: 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 9AD971B2E73 for ; Wed, 24 Jun 2015 14:49:19 -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 i4j2aQMEZXkZ for ; Wed, 24 Jun 2015 14:49:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ie0-f181.google.com (mail-ie0-f181.google.com [209.85.223.181]) (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 367A31B2E72 for ; Wed, 24 Jun 2015 14:49:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: by iebrt9 with SMTP id rt9so42428245ieb.2 for ; Wed, 24 Jun 2015 14:49:17 -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 :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=5oKq1gvb8ZMPYwGMfBYpRC6YJQhJ/7VQUQSNIjcz4NY=; b=FvsF3iJbqgX4dI/pbDyAxVFgyMq5v9+4P4b1REOF3LoshpyTQckjUsZrbEkLgJbPnH MfURsbGNm6xlMZHm6JnjhZNF42/YkCJKpfuqsR7HAh+zCn6ZSLgPZ1BLhYaYQeG+6Q0V aGWzI7CzUBg7TrUR31I0GX5reYyA3DZftgyea0zPn1kgw1qYZzv0EXkW4aKKNarHHjop ts/3OK4iBzLk5KzeI8/TnxW87RK3I7/ZDlHBQrRTB2rC1oLRZwr3901NAqaf/WWptAwt /UnVu6ujixHONqIcJmAzZ5STReL3fxYj3FoQ5l/CjY2U5yAN3WYuAGKx3kCeQXYCmZ4Z IoKw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkjPD/GZr6IyEKm7oU39iK2Y9lfPDAtgJW+flQo11J09j7XMa9U/axobBOaYx0ePFjfQ72g X-Received: by 10.107.134.214 with SMTP id q83mr38540633ioi.91.1435182557647; Wed, 24 Jun 2015 14:49:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from aither.local ([2601:282:4201:ef5b:7dc6:738e:73e4:2f00]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id u38sm18179484ioi.0.2015.06.24.14.49.16 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 24 Jun 2015 14:49:16 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <558B25DB.4090501@andyet.net> Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 15:49:15 -0600 From: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet 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: Ben Campbell , draft-ietf-xmpp-posh.all@tools.ietf.org, XMPP Working Group References: <86E041F3-A90D-45E6-945E-3BAC592F8E58@nostrum.com> In-Reply-To: <86E041F3-A90D-45E6-945E-3BAC592F8E58@nostrum.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [xmpp] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-xmpp-posh-04 X-BeenThere: xmpp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: XMPP Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 21:49:19 -0000 On 6/24/15 2:41 PM, Ben Campbell wrote: > Hi, > > This is my AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-xmpp-posh-04. There's nothing > here to block last call. > > Thanks! > > Ben. > > -------- > > -- section 3, first paragraph after first numbered list: " ... server > proves it identity ..." > > s/it/its Noted. > -- 8, last sentence > > With this one sentence, you've made the entire introduction serve as a > shaggy dog story, without detracting from its main purpose. Bravo. Also, > groan :-) We couldn't resist. ;-) > -- References: > > IDNits turns up several outdated references that probably need attention > before final publication. Indeed. Several of the cited documents have undergone revisions since February, and draft-ietf-websec-key-pinning is now RFC 7469 Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://andyet.com/ From nobody Wed Jun 24 20:58:36 2015 Return-Path: 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 3A0A71AD0AB for ; Wed, 24 Jun 2015 20:58:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.31 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.31 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, J_CHICKENPOX_17=0.6, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 TYhJeMT17O4m for ; Wed, 24 Jun 2015 20:58:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (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 96D5C1AD0A8 for ; Wed, 24 Jun 2015 20:58:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.0.1.23] (cpe-70-119-203-4.tx.res.rr.com [70.119.203.4]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.1/8.14.9) with ESMTPSA id t5P3wEmh034405 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 24 Jun 2015 22:58:25 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com) X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host cpe-70-119-203-4.tx.res.rr.com [70.119.203.4] claimed to be [10.0.1.23] From: "Ben Campbell" To: "Peter Saint-Andre - &yet" Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 22:58:14 -0500 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <558B24B3.3010406@andyet.net> References: <558B24B3.3010406@andyet.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.1r5084) Archived-At: Cc: draft-ietf-xmpp-dna.all@tools.ietf.org, XMPP Working Group Subject: Re: [xmpp] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-xmpp-dna-10 X-BeenThere: xmpp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: XMPP Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 03:58:34 -0000 Your responses all sound good. Thanks! On 24 Jun 2015, at 16:44, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet wrote: > On 6/24/15 2:16 PM, Ben Campbell wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Here is my AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-xmpp-dna-10. I have a few >> minor >> comments, but nothing that needs to delay the last call. >> >> Thanks! >> >> Ben. >> ------- >> >> -- Section 4.1: >> >> Does the "(Section 4.3: No Mutual PKIX authentication)" belong where >> it >> is, or before the first dialback assertion? > > Yes, it belongs farther up. > >> -- 4.3, step 6: >> >> Do I understand correctly that this step involves A sending a valid >> and >> trusted server cert, when it was previously unable to send a valid >> and >> trusted client cert? Is that a reasonable assumption? Whether yes or >> no, >> does it deserve a mention in the text? (It's likely I am missing >> something that should be obvious.) > > We haven't described this very well. As you point out, Server B > doesn't trust this certificate (perhaps there's a name mismatch or > whatever) and that's the whole point of this flow. > >> -- step 7: >> >> The reference to xep-0344 is informative. Should it be normative? If >> not, then perhaps a stronger mention of skipping subsequent steps >> should >> be included here? (it’s only mentioned in terms of the reference.) > > In the flow described here (falling back to Server Dialback), the > subsequent steps are necessary. > > I would suggest. > > OLD > > 6. The servers attempt TLS negotiation, during which Server A > (acting as a TLS server) presents a PKIX certificate proving that > it is a.example. > > 7. Server B checks the PKIX certificate that Server A provided. > This might be the same certificate presented by Server A as a > client certificate in the initial connection. See [XEP-0344] for > further discussion about skipping the subsequent steps. > > 8. Server B proceeds with Server Dialback in order to establish the > domain name association. In order to do this it sends a request > for verification as described in [XEP-0220]: > > some- > dialback-key > > 9. Server A responds to this: > > some- > dialback-key > > 9. Server A responds to this: > > > There are only two logical servers (A and B) but they can provide > service for additional domain names (e.g., c.example in the case of > Server B). To forestall confusion, it might be good to change "Server > A" to "Server 1" and "Server B" to "Server 2". > > Peter > > -- > Peter Saint-Andre > https://andyet.com/