Brian,
Common sense argues against putting something other than an e-mail address in
the rfc822namem attribute.
I expect ADs to use common sense, as well as careful reading of prior RFCs,
when making decisions.
Indeed, but that cuts both ways, since running code is our goal. No parser is
in a position to say that
rfcself+fd89b714f3db00000200000064000000+area51.resea...@acp.example.com isn't
an email address.
If we were only AIs that would be a suitable reply ;-).
But, we're not- we all know that the proposed IDs are NOT rfc822
addresses, so let's not play games.
The simple answer is that when, in the past, developers have chosen to
abuse the semantics of subject name fields in certs, the result shave
been VERY long lasting, and embarrassing. Long ago, Netscape chose to
shove a DNS name into the DN common name filed because it was an easy
fix for their problem. As a result, we still have browsers and CAs that
misuse that field. At least that egregious behavior was not the result
of an IETF WG. Let's not screw this up in the name of expediency!
Steve
_______________________________________________
Anima mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
