Re: [dane] email canonicalization for SMIMEA owner names

[Christian Rößner <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

> Am 11.12.2014 um 20:51 schrieb Rose, Scott W. <[e-mail]>:
> 
> Realized the other action item I was assigned to from the interim meeting was email canonicalization for SMIMEA.  I believe it stems from Viktor Dukhovni's email to the endymail list:
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/endymail/current/msg00134.html
> 
> I was wondering if we can borrow a page from RFC 4034 Section 6.2 and include text in the draft Section 3, item 1 in the numbered list:
> 
>     1.   The user name (the "left-hand side" of the email address, called
>       the "local-part" in the mail message format definition [RFC2822]
>       and the "local part" in the specification for internationalized
>       email [RFC6530]), is hashed using the SHA2-224 [RFC5754]
>       algorithm (with the hash being represented in its hexadecimal
>       representation, to become the left-most label in the prepared
>       domain name.  This does not include the "@" character that
>       separates the left and right sides of the email address.  The
>       string that is used for the local part is a Unicode string
>       encoded in UTF-8 **with all upper case letters converted to their
>       corresponding lower case letters where appropriate.**
> 
> 
> The text between the '**' is new.  The goal is to prevent a situation when the email address is "[e-mail]" and the SMIMEA is created using "jrandom" as the user name.   Would this be enough, or are there scripts where this would result in different or potentially conflicting owner names?  

sorry, if my answer might be a little bit off-topic. When the draft for SMIMEA was posted the first time, I wrote to someone here on the list off-list. I asked, why to use SHA2-224 for the local part of an email address. I thought about useability for many of records in DNS for a large company. That seeing only hashes and nothing readable would make it nearly impossible to find a record again manually without technical help.

So I thought about punycode RFC3492. I know the RFC might only be for domains, but I asked myself, why this would not be applied to a local part as well.

Many countries would benefit from such a representation, because the have parts of the latin alphabet and therefor just a hand full of characters would need conversion.

I am a layperson, so these are just my ideas and there might exists good reasons, why this is not applicable. But at least I did not want to miss the chance to bring up this discussion.

And sorry, if this is not 100% answer to this thread. At least it focuses on parts of the SHA2-224 and I wanted to give an optional view.

Kind regards

Christian
--
Bachelor of Science Informatik
Erlenwiese 14, 36304 Alsfeld
T: [phone], F: [phone], M: [phone]
USt-IdNr.: DE225643613, http://www.roessner-network-solutions.com