[Uta] Barry Leiba's Discuss on draft-ietf-uta-email-tls-certs-07: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

["Barry Leiba" <[e-mail]>]

Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-uta-email-tls-certs-07: Discuss

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-uta-email-tls-certs/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

A small question before I go to "Yes":

RFC 2595 Section 2.4 says:

   - Matching is case-insensitive.

This document does not.  Was that dropped intentionally?


----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

In the Introduction, you say that ths document replaces Section 2.4 of
RFC 2595.  It appears that it's specifically Section 3 that replaces that
section.  Maybe it's best to say that?

-- Section 2 --

   reference identifier:  (as defined in [RFC6125]) One of the domain
      names associated by the email (i.e., an SMTP, IMAP, POP3 or
      ManageSieve) client with the target email server and optionally an
      application service type for performing name checks on the server
      certificate.

1. You refer to the definition in 6125 as though you're repeating it
here, but you're not: you're giving a different definition.  Maybe if you
said "formally defined in RFC 6125" instead, it'd be clearer that this
explanation is applying that formal definition to this specific situation
(email).

2. It's usually bad to put a parenthesized explanation in the middle of a
unit, and "email client" is a unit here.  (And, as almost always, I think
"i.e." is unnecessary and further distracting.)

3. The sentence is long and awkward, saying "associated by... with... and
optionally...," and it's easy to get lost.

Here's a suggestion:
NEW
   reference identifier:  (formally defined in [RFC6125]) One of the
      domain names that the email client (SMTP, IMAP, POP3 or
ManageSieve)
      associates with the target email server.  The identifier can also
      include an application service type for performing name checks on
      the server certificate.
END