Re: [apps-discuss] apps-team review of draft-ietf-hokey-ldn-discovery-06
Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> Fri, 04 February 2011 18:09 UTC
Return-Path: <lear@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 282023A6968; Fri, 4 Feb 2011 10:09:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.245
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.245 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.354, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qnxxrczHkamo; Fri, 4 Feb 2011 10:09:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ams-iport-2.cisco.com (ams-iport-2.cisco.com [144.254.224.141]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBF9A3A694A; Fri, 4 Feb 2011 10:09:08 -0800 (PST)
Authentication-Results: ams-iport-2.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
Received: from ams-core-2.cisco.com ([144.254.72.75]) by ams-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 04 Feb 2011 18:12:33 +0000
Received: from dhcp-10-61-111-78.cisco.com (dhcp-10-61-111-78.cisco.com [10.61.111.78]) by ams-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p14ICXOQ000413; Fri, 4 Feb 2011 18:12:33 GMT
Message-ID: <4D4C4184.4070108@cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2011 19:12:20 +0100
From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101207 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] apps-team review of draft-ietf-hokey-ldn-discovery-06
References: <4D4BE6A4.9060801@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <4D4BE6A4.9060801@cisco.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Robert Elz <kre@munnari.OZ.AU>, IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>, 'IESG' <iesg@ietf.org>, "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-hokey-ldn-discovery@tools.ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Fri, 04 Feb 2011 18:09:10 -0000
Correcting something I wrote (thanks to Rob Elz): On 2/4/11 12:44 PM, Eliot Lear wrote: > According to RFC 4282 it should be possible for an NAI realm to begin > with a digit. Strictly speaking this is not allowed by RFC 1035, which > RFC 3315 refers to, which this document references. As a matter of > correctness, I might simply reference RFC 4282 instead of RFC 3315. There is confusion here. 1035 has display guidelines relating to the use of numbers. RFC 4282 indicates makes the claim that the limitation is stronger. RFC 2181 clarifies this in Section 11. Either reference, therefore, would work, and the authors should ignore the above quoted text. In time it may be worth RFC3315bis referencing 1035 and 2181, and RFC 4282 doing the same. Eliot