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

Alexey Melnikov <> Wed, 10 January 2018 16:12 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56CDF12D94B; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 08:12:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.011
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.011 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FiVGeKD3lOGU; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 08:12:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5564212D876; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 08:12:27 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1515600746;; s=june2016;; bh=QxvHeofxjAPxHnKSjcRcG2FUwxD/wi5gj8NIhDbydzw=; h=From:Sender:Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:To:Cc:MIME-Version: In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-ID:Content-Description; b=OLbQJGq4h6FgLkYJFdIiBs10mOVF20vuoav6PxLKT2IciitSNufCKqXIt5OXdRPEf3w8QU uiTbAQNA7TaFeSLbU7JB5aV6nkn/pfBfp3EPltOxPXbMuFHvhXYm+ElJ77VBeEKZEoshcy pqqEUEUuxBElkRObw+451O4cYFBZsMg=;
Received: from [] ( []) by (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPSA id <>; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 16:12:26 +0000
To: Adam Roach <>, Russ Housley <>
Cc: SPASM <>, IESG <>
References: <> <> <>
From: Alexey Melnikov <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 16:12:11 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.2
In-Reply-To: <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-GB
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [lamps] Adam Roach's Yes on draft-ietf-lamps-eai-addresses-15: (with COMMENT)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This is a venue for discussion of doing Some Pkix And SMime \(spasm\) work." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 16:12:30 -0000

Hi Adam,

On 10/01/2018 16:08, Adam Roach wrote:
> On 1/10/18 10:00 AM, Russ Housley wrote:
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> 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.
>> 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.
> I mean, if you want to change the document in the RFC to be 
> "id-on-smtputf8Name", I don't see a problem with that either -- but I 
> presume it was changed from "Name" to "Mailbox" for some reason,
This was done based on Ekr's review, as he found the difference 
confusing (I agree it was). These labels should only be used in 
documentation, I don't think they affect anything on the wire. For 
example OID is going to be encoded the same either way.

> and Alexey would need to evaluate whether a change back would be a 
> reversion of WG consensus.

I am happy to hear otherwise, but I think this is not a big deal either way.