Michael,

I haven't had a chance to go back and reread the section in RELOAD or
fully think about this particular issue too much yet (so I certainly
have no opinions about the "right" way), but since this decision is
coming from an actual implementation, can you share a bit why you made
the decision you did? Was it motivated by a problem with the proposal
in the draft? An optimization to improve the current draft after
trying the other way? Or was it just that you did it that way before
the draft, etc.?

Obviously since we are still working on getting things right with the
draft, nothing is set in stone quite yet, and it's always good to hear
from implementors about why they made the decisions they did when they
differ from the draft, so that we make sure we really are getting the
best ideas. (especially here, where it seems, unfortunately, that
there are only a few folks trying to implement RELOAD, or at least
willing to talk about their implementation experience)

Also, anything else you have done differently/found awkward/etc. in
the current draft? It's not really so much a question of "compliance"
with the current draft right now -- now is the time to discuss
differences and find and address as many shortcomings in the current
draft proposal as possible, so we get as many ideas as possible and
the best protocol, then move it forward...

My 2 cents

David (as individual)

On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 11:07 AM, ekr <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 7:31 AM, Michael Chen <[email protected]> 
> wrote:
>> Julian,
>>
>> In our implementation, we search for rfc822Name format in all X509 fields in
>> the following order:
>>
>>  CN
>
> This seems like it is not compliant with the current draft.
>
>>  emailAddress
>
> This is definitely not compliant and I don't see why it would be OK under
> any circumstances.
>
>
> -Ekr
> _______________________________________________
> P2PSIP mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
>
_______________________________________________
P2PSIP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip

Reply via email to