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

[Valery Smyslov <[e-mail]>]

Hi Peter,

> 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.

OK, sorry for misinterpreting your response.

> > 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.

Then, we'd like to hear from WG members:
whether the scope of rfc6125bis draft should be broaden
to include non-domain names, like IP addresses
(at the cost of delaying its publication) or this issue
should be addressed in a separate document.

Regards,
Valery.

> Peter