RE: draft-santesson-tls-ume Last Call comment

["Stefan Santesson" <stefans at microsoft.com>]

Kurt,

I've spent some time over this topic with Russ Housley and Paul Hoffman
here at the IETF and the conclusion is that we should not specify any
granular encoding or matching rules for the hints.

The client's use of the name hint requires the client to know its
account name and as such the client will also know in what form the
server needs it.

The client should never send the name hint in a way where the server
needs to process it in order to map the hint to an account.

There reference will be fixed (or removed).

Stefan Santesson
Program Manager, Standards Liaison
Windows Security


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kurt D. Zeilenga [mailto:Kurt at OpenLDAP.org]
> Sent: den 7 mars 2006 18:35
> To: ietf at ietf.org
> Subject: draft-santesson-tls-ume Last Call comment
> 
> I note the IETF last call was issued for rev. 2.  That
> revision no longer exists, hence I reviewed rev. 3.
> 
> This document specification of a "User Principal Name",
> I believe, is inadequate.
> 
> The I-D indicates that a user_principal_name is a sequence of
> 0 to 65535 bytes in the form of user at domain.  However,
> such a form implies the value is a character string,
> but there is no mention of what character set/encoding
> is used here.  I would think interoperability
> requires both client and server to have a common
> understand of what character set/encoding is to
> be used.  Additionally, there is no discussion
> of UPN matching.  Are byte sequences that differ
> only due to use of different Unicode normalizations
> to be consider the same or differ?  Are values
> case sensitive or not?  etc..
> 
> The domain_name field suffers not only from the
> above problem, but is flawed due to use of the
> outdated "preferred name syntax" of RFC 1034.
> This syntax doesn't allow domains such as
> 123.example.  The text should likely reference
> the RFC 1123 which updates the "preferred name
> syntax" for naming hosts.
> 
> Additionally, no mention of how International
> domain names (IDNs) are to be handled.
> 
> I recommend ABNF be used to detail the syntax
> of each of these fields and that the I-D detail
> how values of these fields are to be compared.
> Additionally, the I-D should discuss how IDNs
> are to be handled.
> -- Kurt
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf at ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf