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

Wei Chuang <weihaw@google.com> Fri, 05 February 2016 22:32 UTC

Return-Path: <weihaw@google.com>
X-Original-To: pkix@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pkix@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D6021B2E3A for <pkix@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Feb 2016 14:32:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.379
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.379 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 8MHyVfb-pYf8 for <pkix@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Feb 2016 14:32:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ig0-x22b.google.com (mail-ig0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::22b]) (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 7FD9A1B2E39 for <pkix@ietf.org>; Fri, 5 Feb 2016 14:32:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ig0-x22b.google.com with SMTP id mw1so23576974igb.1 for <pkix@ietf.org>; Fri, 05 Feb 2016 14:32:41 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=wDszWJMEeE+wm3kdfriTA46kdK8clK6sE1ogdnm9IwU=; b=Nh6ObGprczFjy3+TQw5zrFhT31CFdNrKum9PcDvvYh0LxVFwBr7PCPNfybPFsphK1v q6TB7QWeSqvEQwBEnVjWh7nDWfbcwtt4g7qHM9icpFui+2DB3zCk/CIWnrdQENVl6fJi fDZMnfKA5/uYmKhExNNjcRiPjqJGiI/kpyfXvSQEAkoe/rCkqJGnyVea6Vuvo6E5A3xM exmPlpprjpbi+SeQO3GDKWWLElKXqTXt8iv7clbJKyhjORbdtjy4obXEqc6KhCZaonb8 uhGF87iBGcbSMSl2r1of68NOk2+rp5vGVgTAqS3ktQi8mYlrU7S9oMmfewibuiw/0PaN Vs8g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=wDszWJMEeE+wm3kdfriTA46kdK8clK6sE1ogdnm9IwU=; b=JgAfNMM6wmDTS197XN0VERLA7IDI9PYvaBt/EhfL0bBdzAYPKxX168RXN4GlZ+8K1/ bj1SEJ6yg7Vhtl9Zp9teclHZPmerNT+RyzYlc0GPRRMq05eIPjBHdvIVW2dpo3335N/j sHqwQvCxu18R63yLdx3MRZrPI29tlq4nooSM7uZEI8ONgSaQdaF3XmGwRuqi5AU8QJpg gmT+YORGYMqARKmXoMI9z7OZLRyq9DKq/TewkSf4Th7fCmzUl2+hJyUauFWK4uTWV18H qzpaFGrbTMNqTm+4tLm29I91Nz3TOZgWYNYBH4fZ8VC9V2DRuHTa/nl61GEnRvf2BnMi cCbA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YOQYnKYChuhmxgSMpGp67C7IpcRMjsOoPdNPhmaC/fNPhCeA42unz84hI5gZPWW8vP9zFWCbB+A5pm0M4gkC
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.138.72 with SMTP id qo8mr17814259igb.81.1454711560814; Fri, 05 Feb 2016 14:32:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.64.149.39 with HTTP; Fri, 5 Feb 2016 14:32:40 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <56B48DED.5080202@cs.tcd.ie>
References: <56B48DED.5080202@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Fri, 05 Feb 2016 14:32:40 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAFsWK2czHNii6xS-Lh86y3cz6NGvUvnCdmg4hEMMYMHgvP+fg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Wei Chuang <weihaw@google.com>
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1134c792d5a243052b0d6d0f"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pkix/xf7qTZiaNAj9Eyxpzt-R9BWrCxk>
Cc: pkix <pkix@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [pkix] Is it time for a pkix extensions (or similar) wg?
X-BeenThere: pkix@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: PKIX Working Group <pkix.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pkix>, <mailto:pkix-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/pkix/>
List-Post: <mailto:pkix@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pkix-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pkix>, <mailto:pkix-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Feb 2016 22:32:43 -0000

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.

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
>