Re: [Uta] WGLC for draft-ietf-uta-rfc6125bis-06

[Peter Saint-Andre <[e-mail]>]

On 7/6/22 12:41 AM, Valery Smyslov wrote:
> Hi Martin,
> 
>>> The chairs think that the rough consensus is to limit the scope of the
>>> draft to domain names
>>> (with the pointer to the HTTP RFC as advise for protocols that support
>>> IP addresses).
>>
>> Is this the consensus of the chairs, or was there some discussion that I missed?
> 
> We discussed this with Leif going back to the history of RFC 6125.
> The text explicitly limiting the scope of the document to domain names
> first appeared in draft-saintandre-tls-server-id-check-05 back in 2010
> and was kept in RFC 6125. At the time the 6125bis draft was adopted
> there was no intention to widen the scope of RFC 6125.
> 
>> I agree that there is no consensus to include changes, but I don't see any input other than from Rich (and
>> I guess now yourself).
> 
> Peter also participated in the discussion and from our point of view he supported Rich's position.
> We also waited a bit for others to chime in.

I'm actually not opposed to adding support for IP addresses - my only 
concern was performing major surgery on the document, so I wanted to 
think about what changes we would need to make. At the time that Jeff 
and I worked on RFC 6125, we were not aware of widespread use of IP 
addresses in PKIX certificates. If the deployment situation has changed 
(as indicated by RFC 9110), then I am open to adding IP-IDs to 6125bis.

> Just to reiterate the chairs' position. We think that describing the handling of non-domain based names
> (like IP-ID) is a good idea, but at the same time we think that it would require quite a lot
> of changes to the current document, 

Martin sketched that out here:

https://github.com/richsalz/draft-ietf-uta-rfc6125bis/pull/54/files

I don't think it's *too* bad.

> that would slow down its progress. 

What's the hurry? It's been 10+ years since we published RFC 6125, I 
don't think a few more weeks will make a big difference.

Peter