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

Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Wed, 10 January 2018 21:52 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 DFB15120725 for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 13:52:55 -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=unavailable 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 lrJygpqGz81a for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 13:52:53 -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 ED8FF12E03F for <spasm@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 13:52:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4958530056B for <spasm@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 16:52:52 -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 iNaS-HB3Iu0Y for <spasm@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 16:52:50 -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 7F8F530025D; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 16:52:50 -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: <a565d7a3-6d0e-19d3-906a-84a63660d0e3@nostrum.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 16:52:54 -0500
Cc: IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, SPASM <spasm@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <347E17C1-DB90-43C4-8EDA-3F65D98141FD@vigilsec.com>
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> <a565d7a3-6d0e-19d3-906a-84a63660d0e3@nostrum.com>
To: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/yYKRuiF99smg1abrOcuISXlcz_8>
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 21:52:56 -0000

> On Jan 10, 2018, at 4:22 PM, Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> wrote:
> 
> 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.

Good catch.  I suggest the following temporary text for the IANA Considerations section:

OLD

      The SmtpUTF8Mailbox otherName in the "PKIX Other Name Forms"
      registry (1.3.6.1.5.5.7.8).

NEW

      The SmtpUTF8Mailbox otherName in the "PKIX Other Name Forms"
      registry (1.3.6.1.5.5.7.8).

      {{ Note to IANA:  id-on-smtputf8Name was assigned based on an
      earlier version of this document.  Please change that entry to
      id-on-SmtpUTF8Mailbox. }}

Russ