[Dance] client-id and client-auth WGLC summary

[Joey Salazar <[e-mail]>]

Hello DANCErs,

WGLC was held in November for the 2 extension documents; client-id [1] and
client-auth [2].

Here's a summary of the feedback received.

client-id:

   - The draft SHOULD say what RR content it expects
   - Needs a check regarding the supported TLS version, the reference used
   for framing extensions (RFC6066 vs RFC8446) and for the architecture
   document
   - Request for clarity on the ClientName limit definition and the
   decode_error alert and a closedown of the connection when using empty
   dane_clientid extensions defined as <1..255>
   - Request for consideration of the use case for mixed environments in
   terms of certificate_authorities
   - More stiff requirements suggested in order to improve interoperability
   and reduce code complexity

client-auth:

   - Request to add domain name example and text on the use of wildcards
   and DANE-TA
   - Request to consider the potential need to encode the transport label
   - Request for clarity on the security considerations from RFCs 6698 and
   7671
   - Request for clarity on the exception that allows for SHOULD when using
   X.509 certificate and a suggestion to change it to MUST
   - Smaller wording suggestions and nits IRT DNSSEC validation,
   distinction between TLS and DTLS, [_service] and device notation,
   references for both RFCs and inactive drafts

Looking forward to the upcoming discussion about any of these points and
updated drafts,
--
Wes and Joey

[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dance-tls-clientid/
[2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dance-client-auth/