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

John C Klensin <> Tue, 24 January 2017 17:25 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C7691294CF for <>; Tue, 24 Jan 2017 09:25:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.099
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nKgJMlB9ObmT for <>; Tue, 24 Jan 2017 09:25:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E23811294C5 for <>; Tue, 24 Jan 2017 09:25:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] (helo=PSB) by with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <>) id 1cW4qB-000ElL-VR; Tue, 24 Jan 2017 12:25:07 -0500
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2017 12:25:02 -0500
From: John C Klensin <>
To: John R Levine <>
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-lamps-eai-addresses-05.txt> (Internationalized Email Addresses in X.509 certificates) to Proposed Standard
Message-ID: <B9F32633ED13374379C6E0D1@PSB>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.OSX.2.11.1701241129250.84185@ary.qy>
References: <20170124020138.65213.qmail@ary.lan> <2A6C1E77A2FDB3E4147305EA@PSB> <alpine.OSX.2.11.1701241129250.84185@ary.qy>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on; SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <>
Cc: IETF general list <>
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 17:25:10 -0000

--On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 11:40 -0500 John R Levine
<> wrote:

>> Have you read the spec, or are you just responding to my notes
>> and/or Patrik's?
> 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.