> A reference identity of type IP-ID matches if the address is
identical to an iPAddress value of the subjectAltName extension of
the certificate.
My concern about this is what I stated before. This document, and its
predecessor, clearly state that they are about domain names. In particular,
fully-qualified ones.
Adding IP address is likely to have rippling effects throughout the document.
For example, much of the Applicability section would need to be revised, the
simple summary of the rules and the detailed processing sections need an
"escape hatch", and so on. I believe this document could just point to the HTTP
RFC as advise for protocols that support IP addresses, as I have also said.
We have not yet seen that there is WG consensus to accommodate Martin's point.
Can the chairs handle that? If there is consensus, then the wording needs to
be discussed and the WGLC should be re-started.
_______________________________________________
Uta mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
