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

[Wei Chuang <[e-mail]>]

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 <[e-mail]>
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
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spasm
>
>