IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [certid] [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-saintandre-tls-server-id-check-11

Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> Wed, 08 December 2010 21:45 UTC

Return-Path: <stpeter@stpeter.im>
X-Original-To: certid@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: certid@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 534563A687D; Wed, 8 Dec 2010 13:45:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.204
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.204 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.205, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_93=0.6, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dMoD7BcGIUZK; Wed, 8 Dec 2010 13:45:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from stpeter.im (stpeter.im [207.210.219.233]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 542633A686B; Wed, 8 Dec 2010 13:45:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from leavealone.cisco.com (72-163-0-129.cisco.com [72.163.0.129]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9381B4009B; Wed, 8 Dec 2010 14:59:04 -0700 (MST)
Message-ID: <4CFFFCDE.1030104@stpeter.im>
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2010 14:47:10 -0700
From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; en-US; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101027 Thunderbird/3.1.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
References: <4CFFE19F.1060603@KingsMountain.com> <4CFFE784.20302@stpeter.im> <AC83817E-5166-49CD-AA5D-2833FDBA89AF@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <AC83817E-5166-49CD-AA5D-2833FDBA89AF@nostrum.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1
OpenPGP: url=http://www.saint-andre.com/me/stpeter.asc
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha1"; boundary="------------ms090806010200050209010008"
Cc: draft-saintandre-tls-server-id-check.all@tools.ietf.org, General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>, certid@ietf.org, =JeffH <Jeff.Hodges@KingsMountain.com>
Subject: Re: [certid] [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-saintandre-tls-server-id-check-11
X-BeenThere: certid@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Representation and verification of identity in certificates <certid.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/certid>, <mailto:certid-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/certid>
List-Post: <mailto:certid@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:certid-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/certid>, <mailto:certid-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2010 21:45:45 -0000

On 12/8/10 2:39 PM, Ben Campbell wrote:
> 
> On Dec 8, 2010, at 2:16 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
>>> For example, given an input URI of 
>>> "sip:alice:pswd@example.net;transport=tcp?subject=project%20x&priority=urgent",
>>>
>>> 
the client derives the service type "sip" from the scheme, and the
>>> domain name "example.net" from the authority component.
>> 
>> Looks good. I love gnarly URIs. :)
>> 
> 
> See my comment to Jeff. A simpler URI would be good enough, as long
> as its got _something_ beyond just the scheme and authority parts.
> And we should be careful with transport=tcp lest someone ask why we
> are connecting via TLS. How about just "sips:alice@example.net"? (the
> "sips" scheme both shows that we intend to use TLS, and illustrates
> how a user input scheme of "sips" might result in a reference id
> scheme of "sip".)

WFM.

>>> Also, given an input URI of "im:alice@example.net", the derived
>>> service type is "sip" (since the "im" scheme is defined as an
>>> abstract scheme in the SIP context by [SIP-IM] (RFC 3428)), and
>>> the domain name is again "example.net".
>> 
>> Well, the im: and pres: URIs can result in a derived service type
>> of "xmpp", too. It depends on what a service has deployed...
>> 
> 
> If my SIP client derives an XMPP service, it will violate the
> principle of least surprise :-) But on reflection, I think the "im"
> example may delve to far into the esoteric even for me.

Me, too. And I've already noted that the "im" and "pres" haven't been
deployed widely, if at all. Striking that sentence seems sensible.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email