Re: [lamps] Ben Campbell's Discuss on draft-ietf-lamps-eai-addresses-15: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm> Thu, 11 January 2018 14:43 UTC

Return-Path: <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>
X-Original-To: spasm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spasm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2870512EB9C; Thu, 11 Jan 2018 06:43:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fastmail.fm header.b=QB03szdQ; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=AJfZKH+c
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 tznFrIR7EIpL; Thu, 11 Jan 2018 06:43:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out3-smtp.messagingengine.com (out3-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.27]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C319012EB84; Thu, 11 Jan 2018 06:43:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from compute7.internal (compute7.nyi.internal [10.202.2.47]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35D3A205FC; Thu, 11 Jan 2018 09:43:28 -0500 (EST)
Received: from web2 ([10.202.2.212]) by compute7.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 11 Jan 2018 09:43:28 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fastmail.fm; h= cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-sender :x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=BcxbRkXBRYqZenQe53cY1DQ8wge7a JIGlLJyQJQVq/w=; b=QB03szdQ6x6XtzTXdbR8y6g7n/cazrl4+25EEfv5Lgsl/ k+hCZ+05+Wi2r7hjMAhg9PI7flGQ6T/1wvBX5h+2NWevrvS8D+as/4Ohayc5W9tv WBrNTaVCpdutxL9f3WPB7KL3P6Knjm8MjEji0+OlD3T0eR6HmHmB8a0GgVLB1sBn KHNitVUpWgadk+P937P5curBndi8xzUt7iKxzmh4v9nfmlJMuNOLn3TEv5ha+8EW PK6oQaWdjpg0xiaL/WsBYT3iUPMlayllfCrnp/110bIuv1jXNWl2sOCMn9FmkpVW GFhPYVH0eEv7f3Ivz8RiySrTBIVj6t1O/KKLlWqDQ==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=BcxbRk XBRYqZenQe53cY1DQ8wge7aJIGlLJyQJQVq/w=; b=AJfZKH+cbnnHpfUg6fqeWf cEZgTsa/r4+VNhrDTbP78HdPCEr+TMvs9cbmgFDdfLAn2uAlRZDRN1zf9XhVmw/r rXI2go8cJZoX95CvKKprXKu8rzx0PIgYapKcrl7UeDblIDO+HJmApMX88gSq3iYo iKcLjKCYA6A48+Gy/4v9F2SB/XA7w1Ad0H8xpWeUlicseTJL7WrNGNNcdSnB+05/ ovhP2VtJXQ9ZNJP7/olkit4VJsnwor3oUZRXkM1npMZAR82FnH967dkEjSm+VRzy 3bnW3ssn5GOIJGCK5Yp6EwcQuqqamcHggcbHNIpYV9fqpGQpZDLQR/Bz0d66GZBQ ==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:EHhXWghqtCMYwe11J7h_hOaqOSdKG9s9od0SRtL-A7sL8g5fSpZUew>
Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 99) id 1285562B9E; Thu, 11 Jan 2018 09:43:28 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <1515681807.4062594.1231937816.37C0052C@webmail.messagingengine.com>
From: Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>
To: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>, Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
Cc: SPASM <spasm@ietf.org>, IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface - ajax-75de3051
In-Reply-To: <E0852EC8-9776-4EAC-B9D4-3CBC0FF9CDCC@nostrum.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 14:43:27 +0000
References: <151555626454.21425.808189332359360773.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <648EF42B-8223-4C66-BCC1-EDE545A1F96A@vigilsec.com> <E0852EC8-9776-4EAC-B9D4-3CBC0FF9CDCC@nostrum.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/67OcYXd6V9ukqpljf_zgmN7HdTE>
Subject: Re: [lamps] Ben Campbell's Discuss on draft-ietf-lamps-eai-addresses-15: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: spasm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This is a venue for discussion of doing Some Pkix And SMime \(spasm\) work." <spasm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/spasm>, <mailto:spasm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/spasm/>
List-Post: <mailto:spasm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:spasm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spasm>, <mailto:spasm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 14:43:30 -0000

Hi Ben,
I just reread section 4 and 6 of draft-ietf-lamps-eai-addresses-15. They define extra requirements which are incorporated by reference into draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5280-i18n-update-04. So this makes me think that draft-ietf-lamps-eai-addresses-15 should also say "Updates: 5280". I think this would be the easiest change.

Either way, I don't think readers of draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5280-i18n-update-04 will be confused (whether they find it through Updates: 5280 header or directly), because draft-ietf-lamps-eai-addresses-15 is a normative reference.

On Wed, Jan 10, 2018, at 5:00 PM, Ben Campbell wrote:
> 
> 
> > On Jan 10, 2018, at 10:03 AM, Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> DISCUSS:
> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> 
> >> This should be easy to resolve, after which I plan to ballot "yes":
> >> 
> >> It seems like this needs to update at least RFC 5280. Section 4 creates what I
> >> assume to be a new requirement for all email address domains in X.509
> >> certificates to conform to IDNA2008. That seems like a reasonable requirement,
> >> but if we want people reading 5280 to know about that requirement, we need the
> >> "updates" relationship.
> >> 
> >> Also, section explicitly says it updates a section of 5280.
> > 
> > Please see draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5280-i18n-update, which is already in the RFC Editor's queue waiting for this document to catch up.
> 
> I assume that your point is that both of these updates are already in 
> draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5280-i18n-update?
> 
> If so, then perhaps the language in section 1, 4, and 6 should be 
> updated to indicate that draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5280-i18n-update makes 
> those updates, rather than this document?