Re: [certid] version -07

[Peter Saint-Andre <[e-mail]>]

On 7/2/10 11:46 PM, =JeffH wrote:
> As PaulH said ... finally decloaking after being off this topic for a
> while. Apologies for latency.
> 
> Peter, thanks for updating the draft!
> 
> All -- good discussion on the list, thanks for all the thoughtful
> contributions -- the spec is much better for it.
> 
> Yes, I have various bits of feedback on -07, some described below. this
> is without a careful review though, and is driven by reading through the
> recent threads on certid@ and checking -07 for how the issues were
> addressed. I concur with the decisions taken. It seems that all raised
> issues were nominally addressed in -07, so the below are
> (subtle-but-important) nits.
> 
> =JeffH
> ------
> 
> [ the below items aren't necessarily difficult to clean up, I'm just
> noting them for the record for now ]
> 
> * It seems to me coming to this new revision of the spec somewhat
> "fresh", that the concepts being addressed could build more cleanly from
> (especially) section 1.1 (intro/motivation), section 2 Names, and
> section 3 Representation of Server Identity. I can take a whack at
> making concrete suggestions by early/mid this next week.

That sounds nice but not necessary. :)

> * need to explicitly define (at least) the below terms/phrases in
> section 1.3 if we are going to use them..
> 
>    attribute-type-and-value pair
> 
>    DER encoding
> 
>    Internet application   ..or..   application service   ..or..   ?
> 
>    service provider
> 
>    subjectAltName   (this term is used in section 1.3 but isn't itself
> defined
>                      until seciton 2.2)

Added to the terminology section (along with several other terms).

> * I think we need to review the terms/phrases we use to reference cert
> components and aspects thereof. I think we're being inconsistent and at
> times ambiguous (need to do careful review). unfortunately other specs
> we depend on use non-congruent terminology it seems.
> 
> E.g. in just sections 2.2 and 3 we use these various terms/phrases wrt
> "subjectAltName"...
> 
>   subjectAltName extension
> 
>   subjectAltName extension types
> 
>   subjectAltNames
> 
>   subjectAltName entry
> 
>   SubjectAltName field
> 
>   subjectAltName identifier
> 
>   subjectAltName identifier types
> 
>   subjectAltName identifier of type
> 
>   [the GeneralName structure in] the subjectAltName
> 
> 
> ..and then including the rest of the spec we also use (in addition to
> the above)..
> 
>   application-specific subjectAltName extensions
> 
>   subjectAltName extension of type
> 
>   subjectAltName extensions of type
> 
> 
> Obviously various of the above terms/phrases are redundant and we ought
> to clean this up.

Fixed, per my previous message.

> ---
> end

I hope we're nearing the end so that we can request a Last Call soon
(several specs now have dependencies on this I-D, including one that's
already been approved by the IESG and one that will soon go into IETF
Last Call).

Peter

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