Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-lamps-eai-addresses-05.txt> (Internationalized Email Addresses in X.509 certificates) to Proposed Standard

Viktor Dukhovni <ietf-dane@dukhovni.org> Sat, 11 February 2017 21:13 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-dane@dukhovni.org>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 360FD127076 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 11 Feb 2017 13:13:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 6DXAKOfYVFgl for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 11 Feb 2017 13:13:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mournblade.imrryr.org (mournblade.imrryr.org [38.117.134.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CC5C012945A for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 11 Feb 2017 13:13:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPv6:2604:2000:1382:81a2:151a:69a9:77ba:33a5] (unknown [IPv6:2604:2000:1382:81a2:151a:69a9:77ba:33a5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mournblade.imrryr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4B094284E4B for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 11 Feb 2017 21:13:01 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ietf-dane@dukhovni.org)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\))
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-lamps-eai-addresses-05.txt> (Internationalized Email Addresses in X.509 certificates) to Proposed Standard
From: Viktor Dukhovni <ietf-dane@dukhovni.org>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.OSX.2.20.1702111606270.2386@ary.qy>
Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2017 16:12:59 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <02630AD1-7F23-4597-B91B-AF64591EB6DF@dukhovni.org>
References: <alpine.OSX.2.20.1702111606270.2386@ary.qy>
To: IETF general list <ietf@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/08WXhnZgVEZ6xP6vHIx-xXlH294>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
Reply-To: IETF general list <ietf@ietf.org>
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2017 21:13:04 -0000

> On Feb 11, 2017, at 4:06 PM, John R. Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
> 
> How about if a CA with only rfc822Name constraints can't issue certs
> with SmtpUTF8Names at all, and of course vice versa.  If you want both
> kinds of names, the CA has to constrain both.

This seems to me to be more restrictive than necessary, but I can live
with this as a rough consensus position if others prefer this option.

-- 
	Viktor.