Re: Concerns about domain based names drafts

[Nicolas Williams <Nicolas.Williams at sun.com>]

On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 02:09:24PM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
> Folks, trying to resolve the domain based name drafts.
> 
> In the base spec, the IANA considerations does not describe which
> registry IANA should make an OID assignment in.

I've fixed this.  There is no such registry, therefore there are no IANA
considerations.  However, the manner in which the OID was obtained is
now described.

> Also, the text sounds like you are recommending a value for the ASN.1
> OID string.

Now we just out and out allocate it.

> However your recommended value includes underscores; I didn't think
> that was permitted.

There were no underscores in the OID in the I-D.

> I think you want to separate the OID assignment from the recommended
> constant name (and value) for C bindings.

This is now irrelevant :)

> Section 5 seems to normatively introduce gss_import_name_utf8.  The
> specification of that function is not sufficient for implementation.
> In addition, I didn't think we planned to introduce import_name_utf8
> or display_name_utf8 in this spec.  I thought we intended to have an
> informational note explaining how those functions will deal with the
> domain based names.
> The behavior for ACE encodings ing existings functions does need to be
> normative.

I believe the *_utf8() functions belong in this document.  I see no
reason to publish a separate RFC just describing those two functions.
I've seen no objections from the WG, but if desired we can call for
consensus.  I've updated the description, however, to be more exact.

The *_utf8() functions are recommended, while the ACE behaviour of the
regular functions is required.

> The kerberos draft still uses .tld examples rather than .example
> examples.

Fixed.

New I-Ds have been submitted.

Nico
-- 


_______________________________________________
Kitten mailing list
Kitten at lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/kitten