Re: Concerns about domain based names drafts

[Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov at isode.com>]

Nicolas Williams wrote:

> > 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.
>  
Speaking as an individual: no objections from me.

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



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