Re: [lamps] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5280-i18n-update-03: (with COMMENT)

[Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Russ,

On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 7:02 AM, Russ Housley <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Spencer:
>
> Two things are going on in this document:
>
> (1)  This update aligns with IDNA2008.
>
> (2)  Add support for EAI.
>
> So, it might be better to say:
>
>    These updates to RFC 5280 provide alignment with the 2008 specification
>    for Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs) and add support for
>    Internationalized Email Addresses in X.509 Certificates.
>

That's exactly what I was hoping for. Thanks.

Spencer


>
> Russ
>
>
> > On Oct 5, 2017, at 9:46 PM, Spencer Dawkins <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for
> > draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5280-i18n-update-03: No Objection
> >
> > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> > introductory paragraph, however.)
> >
> >
> > Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.
> html
> > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> >
> >
> > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5280-i18n-update/
> >
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > COMMENT:
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > You folks would know best what's actually clear to your intended
> audience, but
> > the use of  "provide clarity on the handling of" in the Abstract,
> >
> >   These updates to RFC 5280 provide clarity on the handling of
> >   Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs) and Internationalized Email
> >   Addresses in X.509 Certificates.
> >
> > and in the first paragraph of the Introduction,
> >
> >   This document updates RFC 5280 [RFC5280].  The Introduction in
> >   Section 1, the Name Constraints certificate extension discussion in
> >   Section 4.2.1.10, and the Processing Rules for Internationalized
> >   Names in Section 7 are updated to provide clarity on the handling of
> >   Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs) and Internationalized Email
> >   Addresses in X.509 Certificates.
> >
> > wasn't particularly helpful to me.  Are there a few words that would
> describe
> > (at a high level) what the problem with RFC 5280 was, that required this
> > document (I'm suggesting saying "so if you implemented RFC 5280, you can
> expect
> > problems A and B, so you probably want to implement this specification as
> > well", but in different words)?
> >
> >
>
>