Re: [lamps] Adam Roach's Yes on draft-ietf-lamps-eai-addresses-15: (with COMMENT)

Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Wed, 10 January 2018 21:22 UTC

Return-Path: <adam@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 8991012702E; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 13:22:22 -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 Z_3lybmN_8qh; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 13:22:20 -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 50CDF12D7FC; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 13:22:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from Svantevit.local (99-152-146-228.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.146.228]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id w0ALMJFl063013 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 10 Jan 2018 15:22:19 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host 99-152-146-228.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.146.228] claimed to be Svantevit.local
To: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
Cc: IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, SPASM <spasm@ietf.org>
References: <151556057406.21417.16858044663291002517.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <2E9CD715-B354-4A68-A9A4-45EB03A18117@vigilsec.com> <da2035b6-a729-d591-fccc-3b0c29a39749@nostrum.com> <D68F7087-44DB-46F2-A575-2C3966C371F0@vigilsec.com>
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Message-ID: <a565d7a3-6d0e-19d3-906a-84a63660d0e3@nostrum.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 15:22:13 -0600
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <D68F7087-44DB-46F2-A575-2C3966C371F0@vigilsec.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/e70JTMInp8FfT-hwHzW4I0LVhDw>
Subject: Re: [lamps] Adam Roach's Yes on draft-ietf-lamps-eai-addresses-15: (with 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 21:22:23 -0000

On 1/10/18 3:17 PM, Russ Housley wrote:
>> On Jan 10, 2018, at 11:08 AM, Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 1/10/18 10:00 AM, Russ Housley wrote:
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> COMMENT:
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for your work on this document. One thing I noticed is that the name for
>>>> what I presume is an early registration at IANA ("id-on-smtputf8Name") varies
>>>> from the final name used in this document ("id-on-smtputf8Mailbox"). I would
>>>> ask the authors and shepherd to please carefully review the final IANA
>>>> registrations upon document approval to ensure this is updated appropriately.
>>> https://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-numbers/smi-numbers.xhtml#smi-numbers-1.3.6.1.5.5.7.8
>>>
>>> At this point, the entry is already in the IANA registry.  I wonder if it is worth the confusion to change it.
>>>
>>> Russ
>>>
>> This one is, but the entry in "SMI Security for PKIX Module Identifier" is not. By my reading, the IANA actions for this document have not yet been performed.
> Sorry.  I misunderstood which object identifier you meant.

You didn't -- you were right the first time. The mismatch I'm pointing 
to is the entry in the 1.3.6.1.5.5.7.8 table versus the value in the 
document. The only reason I mention the *other* table is to demonstrate 
that IANA has not done its final processing on this document, during 
which I expect IANA to fix the name in the 1.3.6.1.5.5.7.8 table. My 
comment was simply asking you to double-check that they do that correctly.

/a