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

Wei Chuang <weihaw@google.com> Wed, 08 March 2017 23:07 UTC

Return-Path: <weihaw@google.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 65DA912961A for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Mar 2017 15:07:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.701
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.701 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com
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 vbHKS6UwDiBw for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Mar 2017 15:07:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-oi0-x232.google.com (mail-oi0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 91E021294E1 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Mar 2017 15:07:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-oi0-x232.google.com with SMTP id 62so28260084oih.2 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 08 Mar 2017 15:07:17 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=KLuKM/q7nKMMf9OE6AXWW2WdOCB3SyvmSlI0N89wHyw=; b=oQj3HKDOJoxI55mHqxySDimnUs3SQyMe62AozhMHn3xvKsQ8JdOdoFXUetBJ8pdcg/ vEZdlo/JkEnYblSMqWJXYWcdJi4JhlQ90AJ+uEsEoTmpn0Fu3sKjRx3mx0iJe/8XkVlE KWgJUi+nNsEI71kWf1Dn97SW6fNEWsTGh4cksTZFnwA15imAvp3bg8xQedLFMq5ILsP6 CTMe3363njUOHCDh7mzCk1zpPd12XsQ8eHIKg95rgcewuLGiYqm7FLFKIh60dC3Ha/Ey 0dOEvZG+LXOsPUP9L6FtZXLY1tDu7WoQl13/HxOw91Ffq5osd6zxtq19M6eFHn1lQSTi BUpA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=KLuKM/q7nKMMf9OE6AXWW2WdOCB3SyvmSlI0N89wHyw=; b=OrnCB6JhtmoLE94eRMUwPaMOT5tGGTfocFhgMuL3oOeibCTbDi4RL3GTCRG6ATs0za AjE/+ip76Om9211b5Zfe38lnMHHXAVqIfUZXvC/YjNs9jkLf2ilBszDB41Skzmd42XP/ Gy8Lp6uhy54tG75dqoiZTlO/eFK4dX/r00A5Q4BY/EjOfQslKr9cR7y/3DSylu9eakSS oeoA5mkozTzwlL9Gx7LekIpCWP7F4Jm+BoYeCofRXDqS8MzCPK73n+7uDRncSgjbKINF 0tWuxJv26xBmEz0PsUk8+OszVBu6Oh5rChV7/fNQZ9FLb7X4mOH28NdtNvrgOuQuhIYd paQw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39mqgi0xnjMl5j7zuk1rE1d34teufnoSNgU2DR2zPGfu6zV7R3Us0QCP5XQoNgbPKLIqhcQN1hz17BGIYSOP
X-Received: by 10.202.79.18 with SMTP id d18mr5439041oib.9.1489014436781; Wed, 08 Mar 2017 15:07:16 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.157.41.226 with HTTP; Wed, 8 Mar 2017 15:07:15 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <6d114340-c9a7-e311-e6f9-0614600cafd2@cs.tcd.ie>
References: <alpine.OSX.2.20.1702111606270.2386@ary.qy> <CAAFsWK0KoeeHeKxay=j=NR8AqbzaHXtjNoQNQqRHwUNT3-Pe_Q@mail.gmail.com> <D237E866-CEC3-4A3C-9D5E-0D1B48F1799B@dukhovni.org> <841bb724-7403-4682-3d50-f878f63b0346@cs.tcd.ie> <6d114340-c9a7-e311-e6f9-0614600cafd2@cs.tcd.ie>
From: Wei Chuang <weihaw@google.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2017 15:07:15 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAFsWK2RMGp0jqesx3cTbN=S7p0WuhH+0AbeJuuiZPF6WCbQOQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Spasm] Last Call: <draft-ietf-lamps-eai-addresses-05.txt> (Internationalized Email Addresses in X.509 certificates) to Proposed Standard
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha-256; boundary="001a113d85c49687df054a40301b"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/Uak2BCcrKIDvKtrGtfKIMgCsBYA>
Cc: "spasm@ietf.org" <spasm@ietf.org>, IETF general list <ietf@ietf.org>
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: Wed, 08 Mar 2017 23:07:19 -0000

Hi Stephen,

Let me provide that yell to see if this draft resolves the last set of
concerns.
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lamps-eai-addresses-07

The diff is here:
https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-lamps-eai-addresses-07.txt

-Wei


On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 8:22 AM, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
wrote:

>
> Hiya,
>
> So I don't think we've yet resolved the issues raised
> with this. And since the March 16th telechat will be my
> last one I figure that the best thing to do is to ask
> that this go back to the working group for resolution.
>
> Once that's sorted out, then the WG can kick it over
> to their new AD. Note that this need not add any major
> delay - it'd be entirely possible to have it back on a
> telechat agenda shortly after IETF98, all going well.
>
> If nobody yells, I'll do that tomorrow.
>
> If someone does yell, please do that now and accompany
> your yell with the OLD/NEW changes that you claim resolve
> the issues raised. (To be honest though, I think this
> would benefit from more WG discussion so I'll not be so
> easy to convince if someone does yell thusly;-)
>
> Cheers,
> S.
>
> On 23/02/17 20:16, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> >
> > Folks,
> >
> > I've just reviewed the IETF LC for this draft. Thanks all for
> > the comments and discussion which I think have thrown up some
> > real issues.
> >
> > As of now, it is not clear to me that we have finished the
> > work with this one, at least the issues to do with name
> > constraints seem to me to call for some more WG consideration.
> >
> > I think Russ (as lamps WG chair) has a similar opinion
> > that we're not done yet.
> >
> > That said, I had put this on the March 16th IESG telechat
> > for consideration. If we do manage to reach a clear enough
> > consensus on a published revision to the draft in say the
> > next week then that schedule should still be fine. So I'd
> > encourage the authors and others who've commented to try
> > again and see if, in that timeframe, we can get to where
> > we're happy that the issues raised have been handled well
> > enough.
> >
> > But, if it looks (as it does to me today) as if this'll take
> > a bit longer to figure out, then I figure the right thing to
> > do will be to let the lamps WG figure out how to proceed.
> > (And that'll mean that my successor as the responsible AD
> > for the lamps WG will handle further actions with the doc.)
> >
> > Bottom line: if this isn't settled in the next week or so,
> > I'll take it off the March 16th IESG telechat and let the WG
> > continue the discussion.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > S.
> >
> > PS: To add to the name constraints discussion, I did wonder
> > if anyone really wants to use those. So for example, if we
> > defined the new name form so that certificate chains with
> > any name constraints at all and one of those names anywhere
> > are always treated as invalid, then would that cause any
> > real breakage? (It certainly would cause theoretical breakage,
> > but if that's all then I'd be ok with that:-)
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Spasm mailing list
> Spasm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spasm
>
>