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

"John Levine" <> Tue, 24 January 2017 19:31 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B4ED1295D0 for <>; Tue, 24 Jan 2017 11:31:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9AFi1wL3V47k for <>; Tue, 24 Jan 2017 11:31:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:1f06:1126::2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BB341129637 for <>; 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 ( by with QMQP; 24 Jan 2017 19:31:31 -0000
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2017 19:31:09 -0000
Message-ID: <20170124193109.68919.qmail@ary.lan>
From: John Levine <>
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>
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-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