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

"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Tue, 24 January 2017 19:31 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@taugh.com>
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 2B4ED1295D0 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Jan 2017 11:31:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-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 9AFi1wL3V47k for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Jan 2017 11:31:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from miucha.iecc.com (abusenet-1-pt.tunnel.tserv4.nyc4.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f06:1126::2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BB341129637 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Jan 2017 11:31:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 62444 invoked from network); 24 Jan 2017 19:31:31 -0000
Received: from unknown (64.57.183.18) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 24 Jan 2017 19:31:31 -0000
Date: 24 Jan 2017 19:31:09 -0000
Message-ID: <20170124193109.68919.qmail@ary.lan>
From: "John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com>
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-lamps-eai-addresses-05.txt> (Internationalized Email Addresses in X.509 certificates) to Proposed Standard
In-Reply-To: <B9F32633ED13374379C6E0D1@PSB>
Organization:
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/7DpGUBGRALDKgAPsbtfxZbeKQLA>
Cc: john-ietf@jck.com
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
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: Tue, 24 Jan 2017 19:31:34 -0000

>> I reread the spec, which was a good idea.  It says the domain
>> names can contain U-labels and NR-LDH ASCII labels, which
>> seems correct.  That forbids both A-labels and dodgy stuff
>> that looks like A-labels but isn't.
>
>Thanks.  That is consistent with my impression.   My concern is
>that the language and terminology won't make it clear about what
>is being specified unless someone is _really_ familiar with IDNA
>and the "EAI" specs.   It meshes with Patrik's concern that the
>wording of the spec won't be clear to someone who is not _very_
>good with English.
>
>My impression is that there is little problem with the intended
>underlying spec, but the document text needs some tuning.

Agreed.  The subsequent section on comparing names would likely
benefit from clearer instructions, e.g.

a) if the domain contains A-labels, turn them into U-labels
b) if the domain still contains R-LDH labels, stop, not a valid name.
c) if the domain contains NR-LDH labels, make them all the same case
d) do a straight byte comparison of the addresses

R's,
John