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

Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Wed, 10 January 2018 21:17 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 A70DA12DA45 for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 13:17:44 -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 1fy_0uVEu6SL for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 13:17:42 -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 A452112D950 for <spasm@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 13:17:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 065883009FF for <spasm@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 16:17:42 -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 bUM_XE5yYQ2Z for <spasm@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 16:17:40 -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 2F54730025D; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 16:17:40 -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: <da2035b6-a729-d591-fccc-3b0c29a39749@nostrum.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 16:17:43 -0500
Cc: IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, SPASM <spasm@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <D68F7087-44DB-46F2-A575-2C3966C371F0@vigilsec.com>
References: <151556057406.21417.16858044663291002517.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <2E9CD715-B354-4A68-A9A4-45EB03A18117@vigilsec.com> <da2035b6-a729-d591-fccc-3b0c29a39749@nostrum.com>
To: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/knBEu7jHztZzBQQtUbmMxw7JuLc>
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 21:17:45 -0000

> 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.

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

The document current asks for the module object identifier to be id-mod-lamps-eai-addresses-2016, and it has been that way since draft-ietf-lamps-eai-addresses-02, but I have not objection to a change.

How about?

  LAMPS-SmtpUTF8Mailbox-2018
    { iso(1) identified-organization(3) dod(6)
      internet(1) security(5) mechanisms(5) pkix(7) id-mod(0)
      id-mod-lamps-SmtpUTF8Mailbox-2018(TBD) }

Do we need a new Internet-Draft of an RFC Ed note?

Russ