Hi,
Well, the document could say less about the topic, but then why is any of
it in there now?
No one seemed to claim there was anything incorrect in this PR:
https://github.com/richsalz/draft-ietf-uta-rfc6125bis/pull/88
But the feedback seems to be that the WG doesn't want to say this for some
On Thu, Feb 16, 2023 at 03:48:30PM +0300, Valery Smyslov wrote:
> But how does this knowledge help implementers to properly implement
> matching IDNs against the names in certificates, which is performed
> using A-labels?
Not at all, because the problems with IDNs don't happen at the
certificate
Hi Rob,
Hi, no dispute on the consensus call.
> the consensus call is over. Based on the discussion on the mailing list
> the chairs believe that the consensus is to keep the current (-10) text
> and not to go into the details of explaining the current far-from-ideal
> state of arts in the
Hi, no dispute on the consensus call.
> the consensus call is over. Based on the discussion on the mailing list
> the chairs believe that the consensus is to keep the current (-10) text
> and not to go into the details of explaining the current far-from-ideal
> state of arts in the area of
Hi,
the consensus call is over. Based on the discussion on the mailing list
the chairs believe that the consensus is to keep the current (-10) text
and not to go into the details of explaining the current far-from-ideal
state of arts in the area of Internalized Domain Names.
That said, we
On 8 Feb 2023, at 12:31, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> Thanks for taking the time to provide such a detailed message, and my
> apologies for the delayed reply. Comments inline.
And my responses...
> On 2/2/23 6:59 AM, Patrik Fältström wrote:
>> On 2 Feb 2023, at 9:58, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>>
On Tue, Feb 07, 2023 at 07:31:56PM -0700, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> > So I think a better example is to either use the term "delegated"
> > when it really talks about DNS delegation, OR, you use a different
> > term but have an example where you can have:
> >
> > - IMAP server: imap.example.se.
--On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 19:31 -0700 Peter Saint-Andre
wrote:
>...
>>> 2. An "internationalized domain name", i.e., a DNS
>>> domain name that includes at least one label containing
>>> appropriately encoded Unicode code points outside
>>> the traditional
Hi Patrik,
Thanks for taking the time to provide such a detailed message, and my
apologies for the delayed reply. Comments inline.
On 2/2/23 6:59 AM, Patrik Fältström wrote:
On 2 Feb 2023, at 9:58, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
On 2/1/23 6:17 AM, Corey Bonnell wrote:
I think it would be
I had planned to stay out of this, but...
With the understanding that I largely agree with Viktor too. If
the WG does not, or considers the requirements and restrictions
of IDNA2008 unacceptable or too inconsistent with current
practice, read on.
--On Thursday, February 2, 2023 13:36 +
On 2 Feb 2023, at 9:58, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> On 2/1/23 6:17 AM, Corey Bonnell wrote:
>
>> I think it would be unfortunate if the usage of terms that are defined in
>> RFC 5890 is not aligned with their definitions.
>>
>> If we are not opposed to introducing new terminology to the document,
t of adherence to the IDNA2008
specification, but unfortunately is the most interoperable given the wide
variation in domain registration practices and client handling of IDNs today.
Thanks,
Corey
-Original Message-
From: Uta On Behalf Of Peter Saint-Andre
Sent: Wednesday, February 1, 2023
ey Bonnell ; uta@ietf.org
> Cc: uta-cha...@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [Uta] Consensus call for proposed changes to
> draft-ietf-uta-rfc6125bis-10
>
> Hi Corey,
>
> > > (I hope I accurately caught all the input from Rob, Viktor and Watson.
> > The note from Corey is reasonabl
On 2/1/23 6:17 AM, Corey Bonnell wrote:
I think it would be unfortunate if the usage of terms that are defined in
RFC 5890 is not aligned with their definitions.
If we are not opposed to introducing new terminology to the document, then I
suggest the following:
1. Replace all instances
On 2/1/23 1:37 AM, Valery Smyslov wrote:
Hi,
this message starts a one week consensus call for the following
proposed changes to draft-ietf-uta-rfc6125bis-10.
Thank you for sending the proposed text on list so that it can be
reviewed by the full range of working group participants.
The
It appears that Viktor Dukhovni said:
>Though I coughed a small part of the suggested text, I am not
>particulary in favour of going down this rabbit hole in the present
>document. I don't think this is the place to settle the IDNA2008/UTS-46
>schism. Nor is it the role of this IETF document
Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> Though I coughed a small part of the suggested text, I am not
> particularly in favour of going down this rabbit hole in the present
> document.
Do you object to anything in the GitHub PR, even if you don't exactly like
it? Looking for rough consensus here.
> I don't
On Wed, Feb 01, 2023 at 11:37:51AM +0300, Valery Smyslov wrote:
> this message starts a one week consensus call for the following
> proposed changes to draft-ietf-uta-rfc6125bis-10. The call
> will end on Thursday, 9 February.
Viktor wrote:
>Though I coughed a small part of the suggested text, I
On Wed, Feb 01, 2023 at 11:37:51AM +0300, Valery Smyslov wrote:
> this message starts a one week consensus call for the following
> proposed changes to draft-ietf-uta-rfc6125bis-10. The call
> will end on Thursday, 9 February.
Though I coughed a small part of the suggested text, I am not
> Corey Bonnell wrote:
>
> I took a stab at creating text to resolve this issue:
>
> https://github.com/richsalz/draft-ietf-uta-rfc6125bis/pull/88. I went
ahead
> and incorporated Rob's and Watson's suggestions into this PR so that we
have
> a comprehensive view of the suggested changes.
This
Message-
From: Valery Smyslov
Sent: Wednesday, February 1, 2023 8:32 AM
To: Corey Bonnell ; uta@ietf.org
Cc: uta-cha...@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [Uta] Consensus call for proposed changes to
draft-ietf-uta-rfc6125bis-10
Hi Corey,
> > (I hope I accurately caught all the input from Rob,
ou manage to craft accurate,
but concise text, it will be great.
Thank you,
Valery.
> [1] https://cabforum.org/wp-content/uploads/CA-Browser-Forum-BR-1.8.6.pdf
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Uta On Behalf Of Valery Smyslov
> Sent: Wednesday, February 1, 20
there's agreement
this is a good path to resolve the issue.
[1] https://cabforum.org/wp-content/uploads/CA-Browser-Forum-BR-1.8.6.pdf
-Original Message-
From: Uta On Behalf Of Valery Smyslov
Sent: Wednesday, February 1, 2023 3:38 AM
To: uta@ietf.org
Cc: uta-cha...@ietf.org
Subject: [Uta] C
Hi,
this message starts a one week consensus call for the following
proposed changes to draft-ietf-uta-rfc6125bis-10. The call
will end on Thursday, 9 February.
1. Section 2:
CURRENT:
2. An "internationalized domain name", i.e., a DNS domain name that
includes at least one label
24 matches
Mail list logo
