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

Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> Wed, 10 January 2018 20:59 UTC

Return-Path: <ben@nostrum.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 285E212DA44; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 12:59:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.89
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.89 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01] 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 Hgrpt3AHs05S; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 12:59:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (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 7FA6412D950; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 12:59:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.0.1.105] (cpe-66-25-7-22.tx.res.rr.com [66.25.7.22]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id w0AKx905060410 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 10 Jan 2018 14:59:10 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host cpe-66-25-7-22.tx.res.rr.com [66.25.7.22] claimed to be [10.0.1.105]
From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
Message-Id: <AFCA1D81-04FB-43A1-A6EB-9BC0F5C4073E@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_31A3D0EA-1AA5-49CA-BA0C-71EFB33CA7EF"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.2 \(3445.5.20\))
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 14:59:09 -0600
In-Reply-To: <AA31968C-A13C-4285-B7BD-05BAD59D4386@vigilsec.com>
Cc: SPASM <spasm@ietf.org>, IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
To: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
References: <151555626454.21425.808189332359360773.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <648EF42B-8223-4C66-BCC1-EDE545A1F96A@vigilsec.com> <E0852EC8-9776-4EAC-B9D4-3CBC0FF9CDCC@nostrum.com> <AA31968C-A13C-4285-B7BD-05BAD59D4386@vigilsec.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.5.20)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/UzsnjaEIeQNGCqMm7Bip0lYX64Q>
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 20:59:13 -0000


> On Jan 10, 2018, at 2:55 PM, Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>> 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.

I don’t think it needs 3 notes to say these things are done in draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5280-i18n-update. But it probably should avoid text that suggests the update is done by _this_ draft. That currently occurs in at least those 3 places.

I will clear my discuss based on the updates already existing in draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5280-i18n-update. But I’d still like to see the clarification.

Thanks!

Ben.



> 
> Russ
>