RFC 3986 contains a (brief) description of security considerations
for agents that produce or receive and interpret URIs. I would expect
this document to at the very least reference those security considerations
more explicitly, and at best to analyze how they apply in particular
to URIs used within SNMP.
It's not clear whether it makes sense for SNMP URIs to contain,
for example, 'data:' URIs or 'urn:' or any of a number of schemes,
and I would expect some discussion about the applicability of
URIs within a SNMP context.
URIs are defined as a sequence of characters, not a sequence of
octets. The mapping should be explicit (e.g., 'use US-ASCII') and not
In practice, many systems allow and produce IRIs (RFC 3987)
and not URIs, to allow for accents and non-roman scripts. I wonder
if it would be more appropriate to define the MIB value as an IRI
encoded in UTF-8, for example.
From: The IESG [mailto:iesg-secretary(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org]
Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 3:02 PM
Cc: uri-review(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; uri(_at_)w3(_dot_)org
Subject: Last Call: draft-mcwalter-uri-mib (Uniform Resource
Identifier (URI) MIB) to Proposed Standard
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter
the following document:
- 'Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) MIB '
<draft-mcwalter-uri-mib-02.txt> as a Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive
comments to the
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org mailing lists by 2007-03-08. Exceptionally,
comments may be sent to iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org instead. In either case,
retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
The file can be obtained via
IESG discussion can be tracked via
IETF-Announce mailing list
Ietf mailing list