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 contai
Hi,
this is a friendly reminder to all to stay on technical topics.
We all are humans and “humani nil a me alienum puto”,
but can we all please save personal attitudes for private
conversations and try not to express them on the list.
Regards,
Valery (for the chairs).
__
> (I hope I accurately caught all the input from Rob, Viktor and Watson.
The note from Corey is reasonable, but it's difficult to incorporate it
without going into very deep nuances).
I think it would be unfortunate if the usage of terms that are defined in
RFC 5890 is not aligned with their defin
Hi Corey,
> > (I hope I accurately caught all the input from Rob, Viktor and Watson.
> The note from Corey is reasonable, but it's difficult to incorporate it
> without going into very deep nuances).
>
> I think it would be unfortunate if the usage of terms that are defined in
> RFC 5890 is not a
* Alright then, get on with it. I listed the changes I wanted, and cited
the Unicode Consortium and ICANN.
I would still like to know if the WG wants this.
___
Uta mailing list
Uta@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
Hi Valery,
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.
Thanks,
Corey
-Original Mess
> 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 all
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
particul
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 a
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 thi
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 to
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 ca
On 1/31/23 10:51 PM, Watson Ladd wrote:
How about this:
"The conversion from a U-label to an A-label MUST be done once and
used both to carry out the DNS lookup and the evaluation of the end
entity cert. Name constraints MUST be evaluated against the A-label
converted name.
This ensures that th
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 of
On 1/31/23 9:02 PM, Rob Sayre wrote:
You alleged that other WG participants are engaged in "pointless
fist-pounding" driven by a desire to "assert authority" instead of
accepting that perhaps they felt they were raising legitimate concerns.
I did write something like that in private
Apology accepted, and the exact phrase was:
"...and just a lot of pointless fist-pounding about IDNA2008. If anyone is
still trying to assert authority about this after 15 years, maybe the
problem is with the document"
I try to make it a policy to never talk behind anyone's back, but this is
diff
Hi Corey,
thank you for this work. Folks, please use Corey's PR when
commenting on proposed changes for this consensus call.
Regards,
Valery.
> Hi Valery,
> 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
17 matches
Mail list logo
