Christian, I don't know if I am understanding your shotgun parser comment right. My understanding is that I have unwittingly invoked one via my informal description how URLs should be matched, and that this is something to avoid.
I have written the following diff: https://github.com/IETF-OPSAWG-WG/draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-acceptable-urls/pull/3/files#diff-7aca3461cf4d4087c17882e209f0b93f8c2b26fafa0d9a985555b097db3ea3ceR266-R272 which essentially says: Section 3.3 of {{RFC3986}} explains how the different parts of the URL are described. As explained in that section, a _path_ component consists of a series of _segment_ seperated by slash ("/") characters. The new URL is considered acceptable if it contains the same series of segments in its path, excepting that the last segment may be different. I have further created headings for "Small Changes to MUD URL" and "Big Changes to MUD URL" to explain the two mechanisms. I hadn't really thought of it as two mechanisms, but it's a good observation. I'm not sure if this rewrite is what you had in mind. I struggled with this for a few days now thinking that you were asking for something much more formal, but finally came to this short description. Does it work for you? As for your comments about signature verification, I have made some small changes at: https://github.com/IETF-OPSAWG-WG/draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-acceptable-urls/pull/4/files I hope to hear from you soonish if you are happy or unhappy with these changes, and I'll post a new version on Friday March 1. -- ] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [ ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | IoT architect [ ] m...@sandelman.ca http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on rails [
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
