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

Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Wed, 10 January 2018 20:55 UTC

Return-Path: <housley@vigilsec.com>
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 2C4C512DA44 for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 12:55:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 rpsmY_vLjHZx for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 12:55:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.smeinc.net (mail.smeinc.net [209.135.209.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CDA2912D88D for <spasm@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 12:55:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 362F330078E for <spasm@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 15:55:30 -0500 (EST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mail.smeinc.net
Received: from mail.smeinc.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.smeinc.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id UUrL5ejA6NOX for <spasm@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 15:55:28 -0500 (EST)
Received: from a860b60074bd.home (pool-108-45-101-150.washdc.fios.verizon.net [108.45.101.150]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CDADE30065E; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 15:55:28 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
In-Reply-To: <E0852EC8-9776-4EAC-B9D4-3CBC0FF9CDCC@nostrum.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 15:55:32 -0500
Cc: SPASM <spasm@ietf.org>, IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <AA31968C-A13C-4285-B7BD-05BAD59D4386@vigilsec.com>
References: <151555626454.21425.808189332359360773.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <648EF42B-8223-4C66-BCC1-EDE545A1F96A@vigilsec.com> <E0852EC8-9776-4EAC-B9D4-3CBC0FF9CDCC@nostrum.com>
To: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/D4C6bUJFCUpo12Es2a7DQaPhnmM>
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: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 20:55:33 -0000

> On Jan 10, 2018, at 12:00 PM, Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> 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?

There were multiple internationalization updates needed to RFC 5280.  You will see that draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5280-i18n-update includes things that are  related to IDNA2008 and also points to this document for EAI.  Of course, this document is a normative reference.  I do not think a reader will be confused.

> 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?

I am not opposed to a note, but I think that putting it in three places would be overkill.

Russ