Subject: [saag] AD sponsoring metadata insertion draft

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2017 12:38:06 +0000

Hi all,

A while back we discussed how to process [1]. We pondered
the option to include that in planned revision of RFC3552 but
given that 3552bis seems to be progressing slowly Ted
asked me to proceed now with AD sponsoring his draft. (When
3552bis does get done, then the relevant advice could of
course be included there too, by reference if that's better.)

I've done my AD review of the draft (it's below) and plan to
start an IETF LC for that shortly. Any comments are most
welcome of course.

The only thing I'd like to ask about before IETF LC is that
Ted has asked for publication as an informational RFC which
is fine. But if folks thought that this really ought be a
BCP then hearing that now would be good so we don't have to
re-do the IETF LC. My plan is to wait a couple of days and
if nobody says they want this to be a BCP, then I'll start
IETF LC aiming at an informational RFC. If anyone does have
a reasonable argument that this ought be a BCP, then I'll
start the IETF LC for that target, and we can discuss the
right outcome during the IETF LC itself. (It being fine to
"downgrade" something like this from BCP to informational
if that's what the LC indicates has rough consensus.)

If someone would like to be the document shepherd for this
please let me know off-list in the next day or so.

Thanks,
S.

[1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hardie-privsec-metadata-insertion-04

- Is info or BCP best? I'm fine with info but wondered.
Other than this question, any changes for the comments
below can be done after IETF LC.

- section 4, last para: the "it" in "it provides" is a bit
ambiguous, I think you mean RFC7871, right? Maybe consider
re-phrasing the sentence.

- section 5, 1st para: "Forward-for" seems wrong. Do you mean
X-Forwarded-For (the pre-stds deployed thing) or "Forwarded"
(the new name in RFC7239)? If you mean both, maybe say "RFC7239"
instead of using the name of a http header field, or if using a
header field name, please ensure it's correct. (For  all I know,
there could also be deployment of the name you mention I
guess;-)

- section 5, 1st para: is the "long tail of browser deployments"
still a significant factor? I thought most were automatically
updated these days.  And I'd have thought that proxies were less
often updated in fact.  I'm not sure the text correctly captures
the reasons for the speed-of-deployment difference.

- title of section 8 is odd.

---

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2017 09:03:05 -0800

On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 4:38 AM, Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> It was originally going to be an IAB document, which meant it could not be
a BCP; I'm fine with either now that it is IETF stream.

> Yes, that's right.  I will try to rephrase.

> there could also be deployment of the name you mention I

Okay, will fix to reference RFC7239.

> There's still a long tail of browsers that aren't in the class "get
updated every 6 weeks.", but there has been evolution here.

> Sorry, that's a doc bug; will fix.

Ted