IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dane] [apps-discuss] AppsDir review of

SM <sm@resistor.net> Fri, 04 May 2012 22:51 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@resistor.net>
X-Original-To: dane@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dane@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9099021F848A; Fri, 4 May 2012 15:51:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.581
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.581 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.018, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MOo+QsB8Ajm8; Fri, 4 May 2012 15:51:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D840421F8484; Fri, 4 May 2012 15:51:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SUBMAN.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q44MosIQ028878; Fri, 4 May 2012 15:50:58 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1336171862; i=@resistor.net; bh=dCK3Jg/dzB8UsGA/Kes7ELu7lJOaB3hllpIZf9kZjYE=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=j2cPhLFpwDleX40wWq6yXwJ47yDfopVIISdVUTk4bRgtYXcI0AG4js4uX/UXcuTpT D4d0xQwioIzm7BPZcvrjct5Umkc0qrC1rFic1eRwl3G96RhZS770LOVy8yakL/UyzP TbqyVuqv/hfK7dzw0ceB2ugtdWv7br3B1BSfHBEE=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1336171862; i=@resistor.net; bh=dCK3Jg/dzB8UsGA/Kes7ELu7lJOaB3hllpIZf9kZjYE=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=xW8Pjb3zz/bOxeA0wwqN+aMlRA2rCzWQQBTi+IUfnydmqrdV+7LdTKpI0q9xU+XKe oqZ5aLtXCypVagoinuO/xAs/PaYRY6fl++eBSEWu1GqC7cMoa7eyNFcEG03mk7/h7H qDBgui4uRTxYcLwO9zmd+X9+6cvnNJmg4AzduiZ4=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120504152947.0ab53640@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Fri, 04 May 2012 15:50:49 -0700
To: mrex@sap.com
From: SM <sm@resistor.net>
In-Reply-To: <201205042224.q44MOo03029933@fs4113.wdf.sap.corp>
References: <20120504220713.GR7394@crankycanuck.ca> <201205042224.q44MOo03029933@fs4113.wdf.sap.corp>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Cc: dane@ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org, apps-discuss@ietf.org, paul.hoffman@vpnc.org
Subject: Re: [dane] [apps-discuss] AppsDir review of
X-BeenThere: dane@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: DNS-based Authentication of Named Entities <dane.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dane>, <mailto:dane-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dane>
List-Post: <mailto:dane@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dane-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane>, <mailto:dane-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 May 2012 22:51:04 -0000

Hi Martin,
At 15:24 04-05-2012, Martin Rex wrote:
>We added similar text like the above to rfc6066 (TLS extensions)
>for the description of the extension "Server name indication" here:
>
>   http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6066#page-7
>
>3rd paragraph on page 7
>
>Could you point to an existing document that contains a suitable
>1-paragraph desciption that you believe fits better here?

I'll skip the tricky question. :-)

>I don't think that we should be inventing a new description
>for ever new document, but preferably re-use what is already there.

The text from that section of RFC 6066 is about FQDNs.

RFC 6394 mentions that 'the process of obtaining this "source" domain 
is application specific [RFC6125]'.   It seems like the better choice 
to keep things easy.  It also matches what's in Section 4 of the draft.

Regards,
-sm

v2.41.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status