IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art LC review: draft-ietf-precis-saslprepbis-15

Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com> Wed, 22 April 2015 13:03 UTC

Return-Path: <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AA1A1B3652; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 06:03:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DW1DTbacadDA; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 06:03:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3A2A91B3651; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 06:03:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from unnumerable.local (pool-71-170-237-80.dllstx.fios.verizon.net [71.170.237.80]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.1/8.14.9) with ESMTPSA id t3MD3Zg7081084 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 22 Apr 2015 08:03:35 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from rjsparks@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host pool-71-170-237-80.dllstx.fios.verizon.net [71.170.237.80] claimed to be unnumerable.local
Message-ID: <55379C22.2030708@nostrum.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 08:03:30 -0500
From: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>, General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-precis-saslprepbis@ietf.org, precis@ietf.org
References: <5536B130.7000707@nostrum.com> <55377D03.4040904@isode.com>
In-Reply-To: <55377D03.4040904@isode.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/8aeNMb9CDmwvgTq7QcijmVEQdeI>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art LC review: draft-ietf-precis-saslprepbis-15
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art/>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 13:03:38 -0000


On 4/22/15 5:50 AM, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
> Hi Robert,
>
> On 21/04/2015 21:21, Robert Sparks wrote:
>> Nit:
>>
>> The introduction calls out email addresses as an example of the kinds 
>> of strings these methods are not intended for use in preparing (along 
>> with LDAP distinguished names). But in the body of the document, 
>> email addresses (or strings that look just like them) are discussed 
>> as valid examples of usernames.
> Email address like things are commonly used as usernames, but strictly 
> speaking they are 2 different types of objects. How do you think we 
> can make this clearer?
I don't think drawing the distinction helps the document. Peter's 
suggestion wfm.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email