Re: [pkix] Is it time for a pkix extensions (or similar) wg?

On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 2:32 PM, Wei Chuang <weihaw@google.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 3:56 AM, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie
> > wrote:
>
>>
>> Hiya,
>>
>> We seem to be seeing a number of drafts that folks are
>> writing that define new certificate extensions or that
>> want to update/modify PKIX specs.
>>
>> Do folks think it is now time to form a working group
>> to process those?
>>
>
> Yes.
>
>
>>
>> If no, please say why.
>>
>> If yes, please say what draft(s) and propose any other
>> scoping. If you know of people who are or would implement
>> and deploy, that is very useful information. (It is fine
>> to say "I think we should work on topic <foo>" but it is
>> *much* better if you can point at a draft you've written
>> about <foo> and say that you or someone is implementing
>> that and that it'll get deployed.)
>>
>
> We are interested in specifying internationalization support for the email
> address local-part, and we've written a draft for that:
> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-lbaudoin-iemax-02.txt
> We're aware of at least one other prior draft on this topic.
>

Mentioned else where but also updating Unicode in query and path parts of
the URL in uniformResourceIdentifier should also be considered for in scope
of the WG.  Would definitely need help here with a draft as I'm not as
familiar with URL precedence as with email.

-Wei

> Another related but distinct area of work would be handling the
> discrepancy between mail providers treating email addresses as case
> insensitive (and is acknowledged in RFC5321) yet is required by RFC5280.
> Moreover some email providers have other complicated normalization rules
> e.g. Gmail.  We don't have a draft for this topic but could write something
> up.
>
>
>> If you think this requires face to face discussion at
>> IETF95 (e.g. to tease out scope) please say that too.
>> We still have a couple of weeks before the BoF deadline
>> and if a short session is needed that can be arranged.
>> Note though that there is no need to have such a BoF
>> session to form a WG, if everything is clear already.
>>
>> FWIW, my impression is that we do seem to have a handful
>> of drafts where folks seem willing to do the work and
>> where the work might be (or has been) implemented. So
>> if there's enough interest, I'd be supportive of forming
>> a (hopefully:-) short-lived, tightly scoped, WG to handle
>> that work.
>>
>
> +1
>
> That would be much appreciated.
>
> -Wei
>
>
>> Cheers,
>> S.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> pkix mailing list
>> pkix@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pkix
>>
>
>